Attachment

• What is an attachment?

  Strong emotional bond, two way process that continues over time and is characterised by a desire to maintain proximity
• Caregiver Infant Interactions - Reciprocity

  Reciprocity: two way, infant and CG both active contributors responding to each other and taking turns

  Requires them to pay attention to each other's verbal signals and facial expressions, so that CG can respond appropriately

  One study had babies interacting with their baby in real time, and another where a video of the mother was played for the baby. Infants began to show distress and attempted to reengage the mother -> infant is actively attempting to gain a response from CG
• Caregiver Infant Interactions - Interactional Synchrony

  Interaction is rhythmic, and infant and CG may mirror each other's behaviour

  They are synchronised as they are both moving in similar ways/patterns

  IS has been studied in infants as young as 3 days suggesting it's innate

  One study found that there was an association between the infant behaviour and the CG's, tested the child's responses to distinct facial expressions and distinctive gestures
• Evaluation of Research into Infant Caregiver Interactions

  Effect of using infants: no demand characteristics, which strengthens validity but children's behaviours are quite consistent e.g opening mouth so it's difficult to determine if it's to do with CG interactions

  Practical Application: helps teach parents how to develop healthy attachments

  Cultural Variations: interaction styles vary between cultures, e.g Kenyan mothers don't make eye contact with their kids but still have secure attachments
• Schaffer's Stages of Attachment


  Asocial/Pre-attachment, 0-3 months: from birth, infants produce similar responses to all objects regardless of in/animate, towards the end they begin to show preference to humans

  Indiscriminate attachment, 3-6 months: begin to discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar people, smiling more at known people. Still comforted by anyone and do not display stranger anxiety

  Discriminate attachment, 7+mo: infants develop specific attachments to primary CG, begin to separation anxiety and joy on reunion

  Multiple attachment, 10+mo: wider circle of secondary attachments
• Schaffer's research

  Procedure: longitudinal study, 60 infants from working class homes. Mothers and babies studied each month for a year, and then at 18mo. Self reported infant responses to separation anxiety

  Findings: first attachment formed at 6-8mo, mother main attachment figure for 65%, by 18mo 31% had secondary attachments and primary attachments formed with those who responded to signals quickly

  Conclusion: quality of relationship matters more than quantity
• Evaluation of Schaffer


  Validity: strong ecological validity as the experiment was carried out in their homes, natural observation HOWEVER self report (internal validity), culturally biased as it was based on working class families and lacks ecological validity because more women work now

  Quality of attachments: some research suggests that tendency to form a single attachment is not healthy development and that children need to have multiple attachments to satisfy different needs
• Role of the Father

  Father is a secondary attachment figure. In only 3% father was primary attachment but by 18mo 75% formed a secondary attachment with him

  One longitudinal study was carried out which showed that, in teens, quality of attachment with the mother was more important than father -> fathers are less important for long term emotional development

  Bowlby argues that the father's role is to engage in novel play and the mother is there to provide emotional support (prefer mothers when distressed and fathers when positive) -> due to oestrogen which promotes nurturing behaviour
• Evaluation of Role of the Father

  Separate roles: same sex parent families do not develop worse attachments than those in heterosexual families. Schaffer consolidates this by saying that quality > quantity, so it's less about gender and more about how people are socialised and levels of responsiveness

  Socially sensitive issue: has implications for the decisions parents make about their children e.g having only the man work because it won't affect the infant's development, which has economic implications and may place stress on the woman
• Animal Studies - Lorenz


  Procedure: lab experiment, independent groups design, gosling eggs left with mother goose (natural environment) or placed in an incubator (first moving object they saw was Lorenz). All placed together after this, both Lorenz and birth mother present

  Findings: imprinted animals followed Lorenz around closely and formed a rapid attachment. Chose him over the birth mother. Irreversible and led to a difference in mating preference. Dependent on critical period

  Conclusion: evolutionary advantage to forming attachment -> chicks more likely to be safe and learn to find food
• Evaluation of Lorenz's research

  Research support for imprinting: exposed chicks to yellow gloves whilst feeding and found that they eventually became imprinted on the gloves -> animals not born with predisposition to imprint on their parents (attachment not innate)

  However this research suggested that imprinting is reversible as once the chicks spent time with their own species, their mating behaviour returned to normal.
• Animal Studies - Harlow

  Procedure: lab experiment, independent groups design. Cloth mother provided food, wire monkey didn't / wire monkey provided food, cloth mother didn't. Studied for 165 days measured length of time with each mother. Baby monkeys spent most time with cloth mother regardless of food, and all went to cloth mother when afraid. Motherless monkeys developed abnormally, becoming less sociable & more aggressive and neglected/killed their young. Critical period: 90 days

  Conclusion: attachment occurs as a result of contact comfort, innate and important to happen early in life
• Evaluation of Harlow's research


  Practical applications: proved that attachment isn't just about feeding, showed importance of emotional care and helped social workers learn about risk factors of neglect
• Explanations of Attachment - Bowlby's Monotropic Theory (1)

  Evolutionary explanation - aids the survival of the infant as the attachment figure will protect and feed them

  Six month sensitive period in which an attachment should be formed for peak development, extended to two years (critical period). If attachment is not formed during this time, it will be difficult to form later

  Monotropy: innate tendency to attach to one most important person and spend lots of time with them. If they are often separated, there are negative effects on the child (law of accumulated separation)
• Explanations of Attachment - Bowlby's Montropic Theory (2)

  Social releasers: actions that trigger caregiving behaviour e.g. smiling/crying, reciprocity in social releasers allows infant & caregiver to form a bond, infants become more attached to whoever responds most sensitively

  Internal Working Model: first attachment forms a mental representation which is a template for future relationships (e.g expectations)

  Law of continuity: attachments formed in the critical period influence relationships later in life, e.g. healthy attachment -> healthy relationships
• Evaluation of Bowlby's Monotropic Theory


  Socially sensitive: suggests that the PAF must spend substantial time with the infant, pushing mothers into housewifery and shaming them if they choose to work - economic & mental health implications

  Hazan and Shaver's love quiz: adult romantic love can be traced back to attachment history, securely attached more likely to have happy and trusting relationships & insecure types felt that love was rare

  Multiple Attachments: research suggests there is not the need for a primary AF and children need many attachments who fulfil different needs (Caribbean)
• Explanations of Attachment - Learning Theory

  Attachment is learned through conditioning:

  Classical conditioning: learning through association (between individual and pleasure creates attachment bond)

  Food (US) = Pleasure (UR), Caregiver (NS) provides food (provides pleasure - UR) and then caregiver (CS) produces pleasure (CR)

  Operant conditioning: learning through association

  Hunger (primary drive), feeding (reduces drive) produces pleasure (reward) food = primary reinforcer, feeder -> secondary reinforcer so the infant seeks closeness with them, crying repeated (positively reinforced)
• Evaluation of Learning Theory

  Plausible: based in an established theory, and many other behaviours are learnt through conditioning so attachment could be too, HOWEVER it suggests feeding is the UCS but it could be comfort as shown in Harlow with the monkeys

  Reductionist: simplifies attachment to stimulus response and completely ignores nature

  Doesn't factor quality of caregiver infant interactions: research suggests that quality of attachment is based on reciprocity and responding to emotional signals
• Ainsworth's Strange Situation - Types of Attachment

  Secure: most desirable, psychologically healthy outcomes, develops as a result of sensitive responding. Shown by using the caregiver as a secure base, moderate stranger/separation anxiety, joy on reunion

  Insecure Avoidant: low anxiety, weak attachment, developed as a result of lack of sensitive responsiveness. Shown by low anxieties, little response to reunion, avoidance of the caregiver

  Insecure Resistant: high anxiety, strong attachment, develops as a result of inconsistent responding. Shown by high anxieties, and seeking and resisting
• Ainsworth's Strange Situation - Research

  Procedure: lab playroom, controlled observation of 12-18mo American infants through one way mirror, videotaped research. 8 episodes, 3 minutes, mother & baby enter, stranger enters, mother leaves, mother returns etc

  Findings: 70% secure (willing to explore but go back to caregiver regularly, treat mother and stranger differently), 20% insecure avoidant (explore but do not seek proximity), 10% insecure resistant (no secure base, not willing to explore, resist stranger)

  Conclusion: innate tendency to attach is affected by experiences
• Evaluation of Ainsworth's Research

  Predictive Validity: infants who were securely attached often have better outcomes overall e.g. success at school and romantic relationships whereas insecure resistant may face bullying. Helps predict relationships so we can counsel them and help

  InterRater reliability: different observers came to the same conclusion, likely due to standardised procedure, shows that the data is precise

  Culture bias: imposes standards of attachment on other cultures (imposed etic) - Japanese babies experienced more separation anxiety as they are never separated
• Cultural Variations in Attachment - Van Ijzendoorn


  Cultural variations: differences in childbearing views and expectations of parents

  Aim: investigate proportions of attachment types for different countries and some within the same countries

  Procedure: meta analysis of strange situation from 32 studies carried out in 8 different countries with results for 1900 children with infant pairs of infants below 2 years old
• Van Ijzendoorn's Findings and Conclusion

  Conclusion: global pattern appears to match US pattern, suggesting secure is healthiest to allow social and emotional development, supports idea that attachment is innate and universal (Bowlby)

  Findings:

  • overall 67% secure, 21% insecure avoidant, 12% insecure resistant
  • Secure attachment always most common but ranged from 75-50%
  • Insecure resistant always least common but mostly in Japan/China
  • Insecure avoidant most observed in Germany
• Evaluation for Van Ijzendoorn

  Population Validity: large sample, likely to have high validity HOWEVER 18/32 studies were from the US and only 1 was from China so it may not be entirely representative as the disproportionate sample sizes skew the data

  Different cultural norms: standardised secure attachment, but Germans more likely to be classed as IA because their parents value independence

  Temperament hypothesis: places too much weight on the mother but some babies are innately more friendly which may affect attachment, CV which cannot be controlled and affects validity
• Bowlby - Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis

  Emotional care: if infant unable to develop warm, continuous relationship with mother they will have difficulty forming relationships with other people

  If deprived of emotional care due prolonged separation from the mother/absence of care within 2yr 6mo critical period, psychological damage is inevitable (risk up to 5 years is the sensitive period)

  Long Term effects: short term damage affects long term development, e.g. intellectual delay (low IQ) and affectionless psychopathy (inability to experience guilt/empathy) -> associated with delinquency
• Bowlby's 44 Thieves Study

  Procedure: natural experiment analysing 88 maladjusted patients in a guidance clinic. 44 accused of theft, others formed control group of emotionally disturbed non criminal children. Thieves interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy, and families interviewed for signs of maternal deprivation

  Findings: 14/44 thieves affectionless psychopaths, 12/14 experienced prolonged separation (e.g. foster homes), 5/30 of remaining thieves experienced separation

  Conclusion: prolonged maternal deprivation may cause emotional maladjustment/behavioural disorders
• Evaluation for the 44 Thieves Study

  Real Life Application: nurses previously discouraged visits due to belief that they distressed the child, and only looked after physical needs but learnt that emotional needs are just as important and substitute the emotional care to prevent bond disruption (positive impact on childcare practices)

  Deprivation vs Privation: Bowlby's theory does not make it clear whether the child's attachment had formed but was broken (deprivation) or was never formed in the first place (privation) and suggested that severe damage only occurs in privation situations
• What is institutionalisation?


  Term for the effects of living outside a family home in an institutional setting (e.g. hospital/orphanage where a child may live for long, continuous periods of time) so the child adopts norms of the institution which may impair functioning

  Often provided with little emotional care as there aren't enough carers for the children to attach healthily to, which can lead to social/mental/physical underdevelopment
• Romanian Orphan Study 1: Rutter's English and Romanian Adoptees

  Procedure: natural experiment, 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain. Longitudinal study which assessed physical, cognitive, emotional dev at ages 4, 6, 11, 15. IV: age of adoption (<6mo, 6mo-2yrs, >2yrs). Info gathered by interviews with parents/teachers and control group of 52 British adopted children

  Findings: initially 50% showed signs of intellectual delay but by 4yrs the <6mo group caught up, at age 11 IQ was 102 (<6mo), 86, and 77. 6mo+ adoptees showed signs of disinhibited attachment (treat all adults the same, clingy)
• Romanian Orphan Study 2: La Mare and Audet


  Procedure: Longitudinal study, 36 early deprived, post institutionalised Romanian orphans adopted in Canada, compared to control groups (Canadian non adoptees, Romanian children w/out institutionalised effects). Data collected at 11mo post adoption, 4.5yrs and 10.5yrs and focused on physical growth/health

  Findings: institutionalised orphans physically smaller during first 2 checks but caught up by 10.5, same for physical health

  Conclusion: initial delay caused by institutionalisation but recovery of physical health is possible
• Summary of Effects of institutionalisation

  Intellectual delay: major effect on IQ scores when adopted earlier rather than later (ERA)

  Disinhibited attachment: occurs when the children are adopted past the critical period (6mo+) as they adapt to seeing many different carers without establishing a secure attachment to any (ERA)

  Physical Underdevelopment: lack of emotional care rather than poor nourishment causes deprivation dwarfism (LMA)
• Evaluation of Romanian Orphan Studies

  Real Life Application: enhanced understanding of effect of institutionalisation led to improvements, so now key workers are used to allow child to develop healthy attachments to a few people (positive impact on caregiving)

  Natural experiment: high ecological validity as it really happened, but the cases were so bad that they can't be generalised accurately to current institutionalisation

  Longitudinal studies provide clear picture of all the data: may have mistakenly thought damage was irreversible if they stopped after 4 years (but people might drop out)
• Influence of Early Attachment on childhood and adult relationships

  Internal Working Model: template for future relationships, resembles a schema - mental structure in LTM which provides the basis of expectations (e.g. own success as a parent)

  Affects approach to future relationships, e.g. someone who first experiences secure attachment expects future AF to respond positively and the same the other way
• Childhood Relationships Study - Myron-Wilson and Smith

  Aim: investigate association between early attachment and bullying in childhood

  Procedure: 196 children, ages 7-11 (primary school), assessed for attachment type & quality of parental relationship using questionnaires, then divided accordingly. Each child identifies peers as bully, victim or uninvolved using a test called Participant Roles Scale. Number of each was counted

  Findings: secure children unlikely to be involved, avoidant more likely to be victims, resistant more likely to be bullies

  Conclusion: supports continuity hypothesis
• Adult Relationships Study - Hazan and Shaver

  Procedure: 205 men, 415 women participated in a 'love quiz' printed in newspaper. Asked to choose which of 3 statements best described their feelings about romantic relationships (correlated to attachment types). Also completed a checklist describing childhood relationships with parents to find a correlation

  Findings:

  • 56% securely attached, positive IWM, described love as happy/trusting
  • 25% avoidant, doubtful about existence/duration of romantic love and did not see love as a requirement of happiness
  • 19% resistant jealous, fear of abandonment
• Evaluation on Influence in Attachment type affecting Future

  Correlational research: correlation does not prove causation, there may be other factors affecting attachment besides IWM e.g. temperament hypothesis.

  Deterministic: suggests that early experiences affect your whole life, doesn't take into account people's free will to fix their attachment style etc, many instances where people are insecurely attached but end up happy