Attachment

• Care-giver infant interactions (A01)

  RECIPROCITY= an Interaction is reciprocal when each person responds to the other and elicits a response from them.

  INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY= takes place when a mother and infant interact in a way that their actions and gestures mirror each other.
• care giver and infant interactions (A01)

  MELTZOFF AND MOORE= observed the beginnings of international synchrony between a mother and infant (2 weeks). An adult displayed one of three facial expressions or distinctive gestures (eg, sticking tongue out, grabbing). An association was found between the gesture of what mother and the gesture of the baby. Important for mother-infant attachments.
• Care giver infant interactions (A01)


  Parent-infant attachments= Schaffer and Emerson found that the majority of babies became attached to mother first and then later formed secondary attachments.
• care giver- infant interactions (A01)

  ROLE OF THE FATHER=

  grossman- carried out a longitudinal study looking at both parents behaviour and its relationships of the childs attachments in their teens. The quality of infant attachments with mothers was related to how well the child would attachments in their teens= showing how father attachments were less important.

  however the quality of fathers play with infants was related to the quality of teen attachments. this suggested that fathers take on a play mate role in attachment.
• Care giver- infant interactions/attachments (A01)

  ROLE OF FATHER- FATHERS AS PRIMARY CAREGIVERS

  FEILD= filmed 4 month old babies in face to face interaction with a primary caregiver (primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers, primary caregiver fathers) primary caregiver fathers spent more time smiling, imitating and holding infant than secondary caregiver fathers. This behaviour is to be seen as more important in building an attachment with the infant. The key to the attachment relationship is the level of responsiveness not the gender.
• Caregiver-infant interactions (A03)

  Many studies are observations of interactions between mom and infant. However the things being observed are just hand movements and facial expression, and we don’t know anything from the infants perspectives. therefore how do we know if its a deliberate action and not just a coincidence.

  controlled obserrations- film mother and infant from multiple angles. Babies don’t care if they are getting observed, therefore their behaviours wouldn’t change.

  Observations don’t tell us why reciprocity and international synchrony are important in attachment.
• care giver infant interactions- ROLE OF FATHER (A03)

  If a play mate a distinct role, why are those without father not diff?= grossman found that fathers as secondary attachment figures had an important role in development. However in other studies have found that children growing up in single parent or same sex families do not develop different, this would suggest that the father role as SAF is not important.
• care giver infant interactions- ROLE OF FATHER (A03)


  The fact that fathers tend not to become primary attachment figures may be because of traditional gender roles, in which women are expected o be more caring and nurturing than men. Therefore fathers simply don’t feel like they should act like that. on the other hand, it could be tat female hormones(such as oestrogen) create higher levels of nurturing and therefore women are biologically predisposed to be the primary attachment figure.
• KEY STUDY= SCHAFFER AND EMERSON (Glasgow babies)


  aim- to investigate formations early attachments

  method- 60 Glasgow babies (middle class). Visited baby and mother every month for the first year and again at 18months. They ask the others how to baby would protest in 7 every day separations, eg adult leaving room (separation anxiety)also measured stranger anxiety.

  findings- 25-32 weeks of age, 50% showed separation axiety towards a particuar adult (mother)(specific attachment) the babies attached to those who showed reciprocity/synchrony. At 40 weeks, 80%=specific attachments/30%=multiple.
• Schaffer and Emerson Glasgow babies (A03)

  GOOD EXTERNAL VALIDITY-was carried out in families own homes/ recorded by parents/observations don’t effect babies therefore they act natural

  longitudinal study- internal validity
• schaffers stages of attachment 


  Stage 1: asocial attachment (first few weeks)= form bonds with careers, but doesn't act differently with objects.

  Stage 2: indiscriminate attachment (2-7 months)= show preference for humans over objects. Will cuddle and show affection. Doesn’t show stranger anxiety or separation anxiety.

  stage 3: specific attachment (7 months)= shows stranger anxiety/ separation anxiety towards one adult/ form an attachment with primary caregiver (the one who shares most interactions)

  stage 4: multiple attachments= form secondary attachment figure + multiple attachments,1YO
• Schaffers stages of attachment (A03)

  Problems studying asocial stage= babies are pretty much immobile- so hard to say that the observed behaviours mean anything.

  Conflicting research= ljzendoorns study suggests those in collectivist culture often develop multiple attachments from the onset- due to the fact all of the family works together to provide for baby.

  measuring multiple attachments difficult= this is because babies also have a playmate, and could get distressed when their playmate leaves the room- this doesn't signify that there is an actual attachment there.
• Animal studies= Lorenzs research- goslings (A01)


  Aim- observes imprinting

  method - separated half of goslings where one half stayed with mother in natural environment and the other half put in an incubator and first saw Lorenz.

  findings - show attached to the caregiver figure (who they initially saw) and stayed with them even when tried to separate.

  also found a critical period where the goslings needed to imprint, if they didn’t they wouldn’t attach to a mother figure
• animal studies- Lorenz gosling (A03)


  Cant generalise it to human attachment- this is because goslings lack emotional needs and often attach based of survival.

  Lorenz findings questioned- lorenz suggested that imprinting had a permanent effect on mating behaviours. Other researchers found that chickens who imprinted on yellow washing up gloves tried to mate with them, but later on found to want t mate with other chickens- therefore the impact of imprinting on mating behaviour isn’t a permanent as lorenz said.

  shows importance of critical period.
• animals studies- harlows monkey study (A01)

  Studied baby monkeys- put in cage with cloth mother and wired food mother. The monkeys showed a preference for the cloth mother showing that in monkeys the need for comfort and support was more important in attachment than food.

  they kept track of the monkeys after (maternally deprived) found that the monkeys social behaviour wasn’t normal- they were aggressive, less sociable, wouldn’t mate, neglect babies.

  also said about critical period (within 90 days they needed to form a primary attachment figure)
• animal studies- harlows monkeys (A03)


  Hallows foundings helped with human attachments- showed that attachments form based on comfort rather than being fed. He also showed the importance of early relationships for later social development including holding down relationships and managed children.

  practical value= social workers understand the risk actors in child neglect and abuse and therefore intervene to prevent it. So help to care for captive monkeys- understand importance of attachment figure for monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes.

  ethical issues for monkeys harms.
• Learning theory of attachment (A01)

  DOLLARD AND MILLER- we attach to those who feed us

  classical conditioning- learn by association (UCS- food, UCR-pleasure)(Innate)(NS- caregiver) when the caregiver provides the food the baby learns o associate the food with the caregiver

  + therefore the caregiver becomes a CS and a CR would be pleasure from being fed by caregiver.

  operant conditioning- positive reinforcement (crying to get fed)and negative reinforcement (feeding baby to avoid them crying)

  drive reduction/ primary drive is to be fed/ secondary drive is caregiver (association)
• learning theory of attachment (A03)

  Counter evidence through animal studies- Harlow monkeys showed importance of comfort for attachment rather than food. Lorenzs goslings attached before they were fed and carried on being attached to them even if they were fed by someone else.

  counter evidence through human research- schaffer and Emerson proved that babies formed primary attachment figures with others even if other family members fed them. Also ignores the use of reciprocity and international synchrony.. how attached re often formed with those who would have the most interaction with them.
• learning theory of attachment (A03)

  too simplistic-ignores the emotional needs of humans, not everything is driven by instincts and survival.
• Explanations of attachment- bowlbys monotropic theory (A01)


  Provided an evolutionary explanation to attachment.

  Described as monotropic because be believed the attachment to one particular caregiver was more important than others. He said the more time the baby spent with the primary caregiver the better:

  law of continuity= the more constant care-better attachment

  law of accumulated separation= better to not be separated.

  Social releasers= babies born with a set of innate cute behaviours that encourage attention from caregiver(activate adults attachment system- to feel love for child)
• Explanations of attachment- bowlbys monotropic theory (A01)

  Bowlby said attachment was a reciprocal process.

  critical period= 2 years, if not formed, baby has difficult is forming attachments in later years.

  Also proposed he child forms a mental presentation of their relationship with the primary caregiver=internal working model= creates a model for future relationships= also effects their parenting when they have babies of their own.
• Explanations of attachment- bowlbys monotropic theory (A03)

  Lorenzs study= supports because of the idea that attachment is innate, as goslings attach quickly.

  Ainsworth= studied the Ganda tribe of Uganda and found that infants formed strong bonds with one primary caregiver even when cared for by multiple people, suggesting that Bowlby's idea of attachment being innate is universal.

  Schaffer and Emerson's research into attachment stages found that children begin to form multiple strong attachments around 10 to 11 months, rather than just their mother, challenging Bowlby's ideas.
• Bowlbys monotropic theory (A03)

  Rutter = argued that the problems children who had suffered privation or deprivation faced were due to the lack of intellectual stimulation and social contact that attachments provide rather than the lack of attachment itself.
• Ainsworths strange situation (A01)

  Strange situation=. Controlled observation (two way mirror) designed to test attachment security. Infants are assessed on their response to playing in an unfamiliar room, being left alone, left with a stranger and being reunited with caregiver. the behaviours used to judge attachment are: PROXIMITY SEEKING (good attachment- close to caregiver), EXPLORATION AND SECURE BASE BEHAVIOUR(good attachment- will explore), STRANGER ANXIETY (good attachment-display anxiety to stranger), SEPARATION ANXIETY (make a fuss when caregiver leaves) RESPONSE TO REUNION.
• ainsworths strange situation findings: British toddlers

  SECURE ATTACHMENT= happy to explore, regularly go back to caregiver, moderate separation distress and moderate stranger anxiety, accept comfort from caregiver when reunited. 60%-75% are this.

  INSECURE-AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT= explore freely, but doesn't go back to caregiver (proximity), no stranger or separation anxiety, don’t require comfort when reunited. 20%-25% are this.

  INSECURE-RESISTANT ATTACHMENT= seek greater proximity than others so explore less, huge stranger and separation anxiety, resists comfort when reunited, 3% are this.
• Ainsworths strange situation (A03)

  The strange situation study involved multiple observers recording the children's behaviours. The researchers' observations were often very similar, meaning that the results have strong inter-rater reliability. (Bick=conducted a strange situation experiment and found that researchers agreed on attachment types around 94% of the time. And this is likely due to the standardised nature of the procedure)
• ainsworths strange situation (A03)

  The strange situation is beneficial to society as we can use the test to: Help therapists working with very young children determine their attachment type to understand their current behaviours/ Suggest ways caregivers can promote a healthier, more secure attachment, which will benefit the child later in life.
• ainsworths strange situation (A03)

  A weakness of this study is that its results may be culture-bound. Its findings are only applicable to the culture in which it was conducted, so they are not truly generalisable. For instance, consider a society that focuses on independence compared to a society that focuses on the community and family. Some cultures emphasise developing independence earlier, so their children may resonate more with the avoidant type attachment style, which may be actively encouraged and not necessarily an 'unhealthy' attachment style, as Ainsworth suggests
• Cultural variations of attachment 


  Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of studies around the world that used the Strange Situation procedure. In total, their analysis included 32 cross-cultural studies of attachment behaviour/ aimed to investigate whether attachment styles were universal across cultures / 8 countries (Britain,Sweden,japan,neverlands,Germany,Israel,US,china)

  most common- secure attachment/ china had lowest rate of secure/ 30% insecure resistant in Isreal/ insecure avoidant least common in japan.

  
• Attachment in culture results

  individual cultures=more common was insecure-avoidant attachment (ROAM FREE)

  collectivist cultures=more common was insecure-resistant attachment (RESIST ROAMING)
• cultural variations (A03)


  . the strange situation may not be the best tool for cross-culture research as it assumes behaviour always has the same significance as in the uk and us.. it illustrates IMPOSED ETIC (when a test created by one culture is used inappropriately to measure behaviours of another culture, leading to an incorrect judgment of that culture being made)= for example infants in japan aren’t moved away from mother/ subjectivity of observation and behaviour/ethnocentrism.

  Large sample size= increases internal validity

  sample trends are unrepresentative of culture
• Bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation (A01)


  Deprivation= some infants have extended separations=when they don’t have a stable substitute caregiver or become removed from their caregiver long term. This ends up effecting their development.

  3 important features of this theory:

  1.discontinuous relationships(separations)

  2.critical period for the development of a continuous relationship (30months)- risk of emotional disturbance if attachment doesn't form/ delayed intellectual/emotional development

  3.Child must develop an attachment with ONE primary caregiver.
• Bowlbys 44 thieves (A01)

  Aim: see if there’s a correlation in separation and development in early life.

  procedure: interviewed children and families/ 44 juvenile thieves/ 44 non delinquents/ compared childhood backgrounds

  findings: 32% of juveniles diagnosed with affectionless psychopathy(no conscience/ antisocial)/40% (juveniles) experienced prolonged separation.

  conclusion: separation in early life led to development issues.
• Bowlbys maternal deprivation study (A01)

  It was concluded that children who are maternally deprived can have the following traits:

  .delinquency

  .reduced intelligence

  .increased aggression

  .depression

  .affectionless psychopathy
• Bowlbys maternal deprivation thieve study (A03)

  His study was retrospective: asked people to recall early years .. not accurate recall of memories

  researcher bias: bowlbys knew what he was looking for, therefore when taking the interviews he would pick up on the details he wanted to.

  Poverty: children from poor families more likely to become delinquents.. attachments may not be the cause.. poverty may be.. external influences.

  counter evidence- researchers repeated study, increasing sample size(500), didn’t find that prolonged separation predict criminality/ disrupted development.
• Romanian orphan studies- effects of institutionalisation (A01)


  Research on maternal deprivation has turned to orphan studies to see effects of deprivation.

  INSTITUTIONALISATION: a term for the effects of living in a place such as a hospital or orphanage for long periods of time/ little emotional/physical care/ effects development.
• RUTTERS STUDY (INSTITUTION A01)


  it was an on going longitudinal study which began in 1998.

  PROCEDURE: followed 165 Romanian orphans adopted by British to test to what extent good care could make up for early experiences in institutions. physical, cognitive, emotional development was assessed at age of 4/6/11/15. control group= 52 British adopted at same time.
• RUTTERS FINDINGS (A01)


  . when first arrived in UK half of the adoptees showed signs of mental retardation (intellectually challenged)

  . At 1 showed different rates of recovery depending at what age adopted.. before 6 months (IQ=102)... Between 6 months-2 yeas (IQ=86)… after 2 years (IQ=77).. stayed like that until 16.

  . Those adopted after 6 months showed a DISINHIBTED ATTACHMENT (attention seeking, clingy towards familiar and unfamiliar adults).. those adopted before 6months didn’t show these symptoms.
• Effects of instiutionalition (a01)

  DISINHIBITED ATTACHMENT= equally friendly and affectionate to strangers and people they knew. Unusual because children in the second year show stranger anxiety.… this happens due to living with multiple caregivers.. don’t form secure attachments.

  MENTAL RETARDATION= firstly showed it.. if adopted before 6 months they caught up with the control group by the age of 4…
• Romanian orphan study (A03)

  REAL LIFE APPLICATION= can help with improvements for children in institutions.. they now avoid having large number of caregivers for one child and focus on smaller groups instead... having a key worker means children can have the chance to develop normal attachments to avoid disinhibited attachments.

  FEWER EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES THAN OTHER STUDIES=using the Romanian orphans and not any orphans from before is benefical.. because beforehand orphans had trauma.. meaning it could of effected them instead of not having the actual attachment itself (internal validity)