Attachment

• schaffers and emersons stages of attachment 


  Asocial stage, indiscriminate attachment, specific attachment, multiple attachments
• Caregiver-infant interactions

  Reciprocity- responding to one anothers signals ; interactional synchrony- reflect each others actions and emotions coordinately
• Attachment figures

  Primary caregiver- first initial attachment (usually mother), secondary caregiver- second attachment (usually father)
• role of the father

  More of a playmate role ; Field‘s research says the gender of the parent isn’t what matters, its whether they’re the primary or secondary caregiver role, based on responsiveness (imitation and nurturing) ; biological determiner of oestrogen released at birth for women and is released more in women so argues that they are more biologically inclined and predisposed to nurture
• Caregiver-infant A03

  Hard to determine actions as observational research ; controlled observations capture fine detail ; stresses importance of response and empathy in attachment and development
• Attachment figures A03

  Inconsistent findings on fathers role (some research says he is purely the playmate stimulator, others say they can be nurturing) ; doesn’t explain successful fatherless development ; biological determiners not considered (hormones like oestrogen)
• Schaffer and Emerson’s research on attachment stages


  Glasgow babies, visited monthly for a year and again in 18 months, tested infants separation and stranger anxiety ; findings - 25-32 weeks 50% shown separation anxiety to specific attachment figure (tended to be most sensitive and interactive figure to babies signals and expressions - reciprocity), 40 weeks 80% had specific attachment and 30% had multiple attachments
• Schaffer and Emerson A03 


  Problems studying asocial stage (babies are pretty much immobile and have poor co-ordination) ; conflicting evidence - Bowbly infers a need of a specific attachment in order to be able to develop multiple, but Ijzendoorn’s research into collectivist cultures suggests this isn’t needed ; measuring multiple attachments can be difficult as playmate role separation may cause distress but doesn’t necessarily mean there is an attachment there ; external validity (done at home, natural) ; longitudinal study (increases internal val.)
• Lorenz’ geese study


  Observes imprinting, separated goslings in half where one half stayed with mother in natural environment and other was put in an incubator and first saw Lorenz, findings show they attached to the caregiver figure instantly and stayed persistent when joined together (critical period)
• Lorenz geese study A03


  Can’t generalise to humans (lack of emotional intelligence and more to it than just survival) ; shows importance of the critical period
• Harlow’s monkeys study


  Used baby monkeys to test against a cloth mother and a wired mother, tested comfort and providing, found there was a significant preference to the cloth mother
• Harlow‘s monkeys A03

  Theoretical value is high as it shows importance in both comforting and feeding ; practical value (social workers, parenting) ; ethical issue of harm to the monkeys
• Learning theory of attachment

  Dollard and Miller said we attach to whoever feeds (cupboard-love theory) ; classical conditioning: learn by association [UCS - food , UCR - pleasure is innate/not learned , NS is caregiver] from caregiver giving food they associate them with it so becomes CS and results in CR ; operant conditioning: positive and negative reinforcing (comforting to avoid baby crying, baby crying to achieve comfort), drive reduction: primary drive is to be fed and secondary drive is the caregiver (Links to association)
• Learning theory of attachment A03


  Counter evidence from animal studies (suggests importance of comfort) ; ignores reciprocity and interactional synchrony ; doesn’t explain attachment just providing purposes
• Bowlby’s monotropic theory 


  Evolutionary explanation, attachment is an innate system designed to help survival (imprinting to ensure staying close to a protector), a monotropic bond to primary caregiver needs to be deep and stable (law of continuity) (law of accumulated separation: better to not be separated) during critical/sensitive period, use of social releasers to influence caregiver to respond/ reciprocate (activates adult attachment system), this determines internal working model (quality/ability to form later relationship or parenting skills)
• Bowlby’s monotropic theory A03


  Lorenz research suggests attachment is innate and supports Bowlby’s idea that attachment is instinctual and evolutionary ; Ainsworth studied Ganda tribe and found infants formed strong bonds with one primary caregiver despite being cared for by multiple people (supports universal that it is innate and specific) ; Rutter argued that the problems with children who were deprived was because of the lack of intellectual stimulation and social contact rather than the lack of attachment itself
• Ainsworth’s strange situation study 


  Controlled lab observaiton ; two way mirror ; tested proximity seeking, exploration and secure-base behaviour, stranger and separation anxiety, response to reunion
• Ainsworth’s strange situation findings 


  secure attachment: happily explore but remain secure base, moderate separation and stranger anxiety, require and accept comfort (60-75%) ; insecure-resistant: (resist roaming) seek greater proximity so explore less, extreme separation and stranger anxiety, resist comfort (3%) ; insecure-avoidant: (roam free) explore freely and don’t care about proximity to carer, shows minimal separation and stranger anxiety, do not care for reuniting (20-25%)
• Ainsworth’s strange situation A03 


  support for validity of attachment types (reflects on later life) ; test May be culture bound (different for different countries) ; high inter-rater reliability (multiple agreements on results- behavioural categories)
• Cultural study on attachment: Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg


  Tested attachment types in 8 different countries by using Ainsworth’s strange situation, meta-analysed 32 cross-cultural study results (charted), China had a lower rate of 50% for secure attachment, 30% insecure-resistant in Israel, insecure-avoidant least common in Japan
• Cultural study Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg A03 


  Large samples (can be generalised to the country, increases internal validity) ; samples determine country not culture ; biased research (American and British researchers, ethnocentric (their culture is superior) and imposed etic(assume they all are the same))
• Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation


  Shows how deprivation effects emotion and intellectual development ; separation is just being apart, deprivation is loss of care ; first 30 months is the critical period, if deprived causes inevitable psychological damage (intellectual - lower IQ, emotional - affectionless psychopathy, doesn’t feel guilt or strong emotions); traits: delinquency (criminality) , reduced intelligence, increased aggression, depression, affectionless psychopathy)
• Bowlby’s thieves study on maternal deprivation

  44 thieves interviewed on maternal deprivation damage characteristics (as can lead to criminality), found 14/44 could be described as affectionless psychopathy, 12 experieneed maternal deprivation
• Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation A03


  Study evidence is poor ; critical period more sensitive (Aftercare can change the damage levels) ; makes people feel/seem helpless ; environmental/external effects ignored: poverty can lead to delinquency and may not be because of the attachment but the environment (steal due to lack of belongings and starving, lack of education, treated lesser than which leads to passive agression)
• Romanian orphan studies on institutionalisation 


  Rutter- assessed care levels effects on adopted romanian orphans in Britain (intellectual, cognitive and emotional) at different ages (4,6,11,15), showed delayed intellect (mental retardation), earlier adoption had better results, adoptees after six months showed disinhibited attachment (attention seeking, clingy, indiscriminate behaviour towards all adults, treats strangers with the same levels of friendliness as they do to familiars)
• Romanian cultural variation studies A03

  Real-life application (improved care in institutions- e.g specific key worker) ; Romanian orphanages typically have worse conditions so cant be generalised ; study has fewer extraneous variables (excludes previous trauma effects)
• influence of early relationships on later relationships

  Internal working model- bowlby states first relationship acts as a template for later ones (functional-dysfunctional) (e.g dysfunctional ones can result in controlling behaviour and being argumentative), secure attachments have stable relationships whereas insecurers develop antisocial behaviour or bullying tendencies (insecure avoidant: the bully, insecure resistant: the victim)
• Research in Later Relationships

  McCarthy assessed 40 women’s attachment types (assessed types when infant) and the quality/duration of their romantic relationships and friendships; found secures were best, insecure-resistant struggled to maintain relationships and insecure-avoidant struggled with intimacy
• Later Relationships A03

  evidence on continuity is mixed (Zimmerman assessed infant attachment type and adolescent attachment to parents, found to not be the same, proves internal working models may not be as important in development) ; self-report methods of research, lacks validity ; ignores environmental factors for causality