EVALUATION

• A strength of research into caregiver-infant interactions is that the controlled observations capture fine detail.

  This is because such observations tend to be well-controlled procedures that are filmed from multiple angles, ensuring that the very fine details of behaviour are recorded for later analysis. Furthermore, babies don't know or care that they're being observed, so there's no need to worry about demand characteristics. This is therefore a strength of research into caregiver-infant interactions as it means that it has good validity.
• A limitation of research into caregiver-infant interactions is that it is hard to be sure when observing infants.

  Many studies involving infants between caregivers and infants have shown the same patterns of interactions. But what is being observed are hand movements or changes in expression. It's extremely difficult to be certain what's happening from the baby's perspective and whether their imitations of adult signals are conscious or deliberate. This means that one can't know for certain that behaviours observed in caregiver-infant interactions hold any special meaning.
• Another limitation is that observations that are aimed to investigate caregiver-infant interactions is that they don't reveal the purpose of interactional synchrony and reciprocity.

  Feldman (2012) mentioned that synchrony just describe behaviours that occur simultaneously. This means that they can be observed reliably but this reveals nothing of their purpose. However, there's evidence that reciprocal interaction and synchrony are helpful in the development of caregiver-infant attachment, stress responses, empathy, language and moral development.
• An issue with research into caregiver-infant interactions is that it's socially sensitive.

  This is because it suggests that children will be disadvantaged by certain child-rearing practices. In particular, 'mothers' who return to work shortly after a child is born restrict opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony, which Isabella et al (1989) showed to be important in the developing infant caregiver attachment. This suggests that 'mothers' shouldn't return to work so soon and has socially sensitive implications. Perhaps this can be resolved by letting 'fathers' and 'mothers' have equal amount of leave.
• An issue with Shaffer's stages of attachment is that studying the 'asocial' stage is problematic.


  This is because, although many important interactions happen, babies during the first few weeks of life have poor co-ordination and are pretty much immobile. It is therefore very difficult to make judgements based on their behaviour as there's not much to observe. This means that Shaffer's stages of attachment cannot explain the happenings during the first few weeks of a baby's life, especially from their perspective.
• Another issue with Shaffer's stages of attachment is that there's conflicting evidence on multiple attachments.

  Although children undoubtedly become capable of multiple attachments at some point, it's still not clear when. Some research indicates that most if not all babies form attachments to a single main carer before they become capable of developing multiple attachments. Psychologists who work in cultural contexts where multiple caregivers are the norm, believe babies form multiple attachments from the outset. This is therefore an issue with Shaffer's stages of attachment as this conflicting evidence undermines the theory.
• A limitation of Shaffer's stages of attachment is that there is a problem with measuring multiple attachments.

  This is because just because one leaves the room and the baby becomes distressed doesn't mean that they're a true attachment figure. Bowlby pointed out that children have playmates plus attachment figures and may get distressed when they leave the room but this doesn't signify attachment. This is therefore a limitation of Shaffer's stages of attachment as this methodological issue undermines the theory and reduces its validity.
• Another issue with Shaffer's stages of attachment is that Shaffer and Emerson used limited behavioural measures of attachment.

  They were able to execute a scientific study because they used simple and well-defined behavioural categories to define attachment. While this does make the study scientific and give it good internal validity, some critics believe that stranger and separation anxiety are too crude as measures of attachment.
• A limitation of animal studies into attachment is the extent to which the results can be generalised to humans.

  This is because, although Lorenz's findings have been influential in the understanding human development, their studies were done on birds and birds have different attachment systems to mammals, who tend to show more emotional attachment to young than birds. This means that it's inappropriate to generalise Lorenz's findings to humans.
• Another issue with animal studies into attachment is that some of Lorenz's observations have been questioned. Now do the rest.


  For example, the idea that imprinting has a permanent effect on mating behaviour has been disproved by Guiton et al (1966), who found that chickens who imprinted on yellow washing up gloves gradually learned to prefer mating with other chickens after various failed attempts to mate with rubber gloves. This suggests that the impact of imprinting isn't as permanent as Lorenz believed and therefore disproves their theory.
• A strength of animal studies into attachment is that it has good theoretical value, especially Harlow's research on monkeys, which have had a profound effect on psychologists' understanding of human-infant attachment.

  This is because Harlow showed that attachment develops resulting from contact-comfort rather than food. Harlow has demonstrated the importance of the quality of early relationships for later social development and successfully rear children. This is therefore a strength as Harlow's research has laid the foundations for developing theories about human-infant attachment.
• Another strength of animal studies into attachment is that it has good practical value.


  For example, insight into Harlow's research has had important applications in a wide range of contexts. It has aided social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse and so intervene to prevent it (Howe 1998). Harlow's findings have been critical in the rearing of captive monkeys as it is understood how vital proper attachment figures are for them in zoos and in breeding programmes in the wild.
• However, an issue with animal studies into attachment is that it is often unethical. Harlow's monkeys suffered greatly because of Harlow's procedures.

  Rhesus monkeys are considered similar enough to generalise to humans, meaning that their suffering was quite human-like. Harlow was aware of this and referred to the wire parents as 'iron maidens', after a medieval torturing device. This means that Harlow's research was unethical. Nonetheless, the counter-argument is that Harlow's research was critical enough to justify the effects.
• An issue with research into the role of the father is that it's inconsistent. Now do the rest.

  This is because different researchers are in answering different research questions. Some are interested in understanding the father's role as a secondary attachment figure, while others are concerned with the father being the primary attachment figure. The former have tended to see fathers behaving differently from mothers and having a distinct role. The latter have tended to find that fathers can take on a more typically 'maternal' role. This is a problem because it means that psychologists cannot easily answer the question: 'What is the role of the father?
• An issue with research into the role of the father is that it cannot explain why children without fathers aren't different if fathers are meant to have a distinct role. Now do the rest. Hint: Grossman (2002)

  Grossman (2002) found that fathers had an important role in their children's development. But other studies (McCallum and Gollombock) have found that those growing in single or same-sex parent families don't develop any differently from those in two-parent heterosexual families. This would seem to suggest that the father's role as a secondary attachment figure is unimportant.
• A limitation of the behaviourist approach to explaining attachment is that there is counter-evidence from both human and animal research.

  Lorenz's geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them. Harlow's monkeys attached to a soft surrogate in preference to the wire one that dispensed milk. Moreover, Schaffer and Emerson's (1967) study showed that babies developed a primary attachment to the caregiver who was the most interactive and sensitive to the infants' signals regardless of who did most of the feeding. It wasn't necessarily the person who spent the most time with them. This is therefore a serious limitation of the behaviourist approach to explaining attachment as evidence clearly shows that attachment doesn't develop because of feeding and these findings show that there's no unconditioned stimulus or primary drive involved.
• However, one thing that the behaviourist approach to explaining attachment can be credited for is that some elements of conditioning could still be involved.

  When taken as a whole, the learning theory of attachment isn't a great explanation, but some aspects of human development are influenced by conditioning. The issue with learning theory as an explanation for attachment is that the idea of feeding that provides the unconditioned stimulus, reinforcement or primary drive. It is more likely that the classical conditioning between the caregiver and the provision of comfort is part of what builds attachment.
• A limitation of learning theory as an explanation of attachment is that it ignores other factors associated with forming attachments. Now do the rest. Why is this a limitation?

  This is because research has shown that the quality of infant-caregiver attachment is associated with factors like developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony. Moreover, studies have shown that the best quality attachments are with sensitive carers that detect infant signals and respond appropriately. It's incredibly difficult to reconcile these findings with the idea of cupboard love. If attachment developed primarily because of feeding, then there wouldn't be a need for such complex interactions and one wouldn't expect to find relationships between them and the quality of infant-caregiver attachment. This is therefore a weakness of learning theory as an explanation of attachment.
• An issue with Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment is that there's mixed evidence for monotropy. Now do the rest.

  The belief that after the monotropic attachment to a primary caregiver is formed the child is capable of forming multiple attachments isn't supported by Shaffer and Emerson (1964) as they found that, while most babies attached to a one person first, a significant minority was able to form multiple attachments simultaneously. It's unclear whether there's something special about the first attachment. Studies like Suess et al (1992) tend to demonstrate that attachment to the 'mother' is more important in predicting later behaviour. Nonetheless, this could just mean that attachment to the primary figure is stronger than the others and not necessarily different in quality. This mixed evidence is therefore a limitation of Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment as it casts doubt over its validity.
• A strength of Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment is that there's research support for social releasers, showing that cute infant behaviours are intended to initiate social interaction and doing so is important to the baby.

  Brazelton et al (1975) observed mothers and babies during their interactions, reporting the existence of interactional synchrony. This was extended into an experiment where primary attachment figures were instructed to ignore their infant's signals (social releasers). The babies initially showed some distress but, when the attachment figure continued to ignore the baby, some responded by curling up and lying motionless. The children's strong response supports Bowlby's ideas about the significance of infant social behaviour in eliciting caregiving and this is therefore a strength of Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment.
• Another strength of Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment is that there's research support for internal working models.

  This is supported by Bailey et al (2007), who assessed 99 biologically female parents with one-year-old babies on the quality of their attachment to their own biologically female parents using a standard interview procedure and assessed the attachment of the babies to the biologically female parents through observation. It was found that the biologically female parents who reported poor attachments to their biologically female parents were more likely to have children classified as poor according to the observations. This is therefore a strength of Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment as research supports the idea that internal working models of attachment was being passed through families.
• However, an issue with Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment is that monotropy is a socially sensitive and controversial idea.


  This is because it has major implications for the lifestyle choices that biologically female parents make when their children are young. The law of accumulated separation is particularly problematic as it states that having substantial time apart from a primary attachment figure risks a poor quality attachment that will disadvantage a child in a range of ways later. Feminists have illuminated that this terrible burden of responsibility on biologically female parents, setting them up to take the blame for anything bad that happens in the child's life and pushing them into limited lifestyle choices like not returning to work when a child is born a remain nothing more than a housewife. While these awful implications weren't Bowlby's intention, this is an issue nonetheless as it suggests that one cannot have a life beyond the house and taking care of the children even if they wanted to, which is practically a prison sentence. This would reinforce traditional gender roles and hinder social progress.
• A limitation with Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment is that it ignores the role of temperament - the genetic component of personality - in the child's developing social behaviour. Now do the rest. Why is this a limitation?

  This is because Bowlby's approach emphasises the role of attachment in one's developing social behaviour. Temperament researchers like Kagan (1982) suggest that some babies are more anxious than others and some are more sociable than others because of their genes. These temperamental differences explain later social behaviour rather than attachment experiences. Temperament researchers often accuse Bowlby of overemphasising the importance of the child's early experiences and the quality of their attachment. This is therefore a limitation of Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment because it suggests that it's not a comprehensive explanation as it fails to take temperament into account as temperament may be just as important as attachment.
• A strength of the Strange Situation is that there is support for its validity as the attachment types that have been defined by the Strange Situation is strongly predictive of later development. Now do the rest.


  Evidence shows that babies assessed as secure typically go on to have better out comes in many areas - from academic success to romantic relationships and friendships in adulthood. Insecure-resistant attachment is associated with the worst outcomes including bullying in later childhood (Kokkinos 2007) and adult mental health problems (Ward et al 2006). This is therefore a strength as evidence supports the validity of the concept of attachment types as it can explain subsequent outcomes.
• Another strength of the Strange Situation is that has good inter-rather reliability. This is because the Strange Situation happens under controlled conditions and the behavioural categories are easy to observe.


  Bick et al (2012) investigated inter-rater reliability in a team of trained Strange Situation observers and found agreement on attachment type for 94% of the tested babies. This means one can be confident that the attachment type of an infant identified in the Strange Situation doesn't depend on who's observing them.
• An issue with the Strange Situation is that it may be culturally specific — a culture-bound test. This is because...


  Cultural differences in childhood experiences are likely to mean that children respond differently to the Strange Situation. Caregivers from different cultures behave differently in the Strange Situation. Takahashi (1990) has noted that the Strange Situation doesn't work in Japan as Japanese biologically female parents are so rarely separated from their babies that there are very high levels of separation anxiety. They rushed to the baby and scooped them up in the reunion stage so that the child's response was hard to observe. This is therefore a limitation of the Strange Situation as it is culturally specific and cannot be used in countries outside Western Europe and the USA.
• An issue with the Strange Situation is that there is a debate over what it's actually measuring. Now do the rest.


  This is because, while it is undoubtedly measuring a child's responses to the anxiety produced by being in an unfamiliar environment, whether the main influence on attachment is anxiety is attachment, as Ainsworth assumed, is questionable. Kagan (1982) has suggested that temperament is a more important influence on behaviour than attachment. This means that temperament may be a confounding variable and therefore challenges the Strange Situation's validity.
• Another issue with the Strange Situation is that it ignores the existence of another attachment type.

  This is because Ainsworth only identified 3 attachment types. However, Main and Solomon (1986) illuminated the fact that a minority of children display atypical attachments that don't conform to Ainsworth's original 3 attachment types that has become to be known as disorganised attachment. Disorganised children display a mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours. This is therefore an issue as the existence of disorganised attachment challenges Ainsworth's notions of attachment types.
• A strength of cultural variations in attachment is that there is a trend of combining results of attachment studies executed in different countries, creating a large sample.


  This is the case for IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) as they conducted a meta-analysis of almost 2000 babies and their primary attachment figures. Moreover, studies like Simonella et al (2014) and Jin et al (2012) had large comparison groups from previous research, though their own samples were smaller. This overall sample size is therefore a strength as large samples increase internal validity by reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by flawed methodology or unusual participants.
• However, a limitation of cultural variations in attachment is that the samples tend to be unrepresentative of a culture. Now do the rest. Why is this a limitation?

  IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg's (1988) meta-analysis compares countries and not cultures as it claims to be. There are numerous different cultures and child-rearing practices in a country. One sample may over-represent a particular group of people, like those living in poverty, the stress of which may affect caregiving and therefore attachment patterns. Van IJzendoorn and Sagi's meta-analysis (2001) revealed that distributions of attachment type in Tokyo were similar to Western studies, whereas a more rural sample had an over-representation of insecure-resistant people. This means that comparisons between countries may have little meaning. The particular cultural characteristics and the caregiving style must be specified.
• A weakness of cultural variations in attachment is that the method of assessment is biased. Now do the rest. Why is this?


  This is because the Strange Situation was designed by an American researcher based on a British theory. Trying to apply Anglo-American theories and assessments onto another culture is an imposed etic. An example of this is the idea that lack of separation anxiety and joy on reunion indicate an insecure attachment in the Strange Situation. However, Grossmann and Grossmann (1990) have revealed that this behaviour is seen more as independence than avoidance and not insecurity in that cultural context.
• Cultural variations in attachment: There is an alternative explanation of cultural similarities. Now do the rest.

  Bowlby's explanation for cultural similarities is that attachment is innate and universal, producing similar behaviours internationally. However, Bowlby lived in the 1950s and the world has progressed significantly since then. Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg proposed that small cross-cultural differences may reflect the effects of mass media that advocates for similar notions of parenting and disseminates across countries. This means that cross-cultural studies into attachment must take this into account when researching and may be a confounding variable if it isn't.
• A serious weakness of Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation is that the evidence Bowlby used to support it is poor.


  They drew on numerous sources as evidence for maternal deprivation like studies of children orphaned in WW2, those growing up in poor quality orphanages, and Bowlby's own 44 thieves study. However, these are all flawed as evidence. War-orphans were traumatised and often had poor after-care and such factors might have been the causes of later difficulties than separation. Moreover, children growing up in poor quality institutions were deprived of many aspects of care. Also, Bowlby's 44 thieves study is methodologically flawed as Bowlby did the interviews and assessments and knew what they hoped to find. This is therefore a serious weakness of Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation as there is no valid evidence to support it.
• A weakness of Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation is that there is counter-evidence for their findings. (Now do the rest. Hint: Lewis (1954))


  Lewis partially replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger scale, looking at 500 young people. In Lewis's sample, a history of prolonged separation from the mother didn't predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships. This is a problem for the theory of maternal deprivation as it suggests that other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation. This also decreases its validity.
• An issue with Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation is that the critical period is actually more of a sensitive period.


  Bowlby used the term 'critical period' as they believed that prolonged separation inevitably caused damage if it happened during that time. However, research has shown that damage isn't inevitable. Some cases of severe deprivation have had a good outcome provided that the child has some social interaction and good aftercare. Koluchova (1976) reported a case of twin males form Czechoslovakia who were isolated from the age of 18 months until they were 7. Afterwards, they were looked after by 2 loving adults and appeared to recover fully. Cases like this show that the period identified by Bowlby may be a sensitive one but not critical.
• Although most psychologists are very critical of the theory of maternal deprivation, there is some support for it from animal studies. (Now do the rest.)

  Levy et al (2003) showed that separating baby rats from their mothers for as little as a day had a permanent affect on their social development but not other developmental aspects. This means that the theory of maternal deprivation may apply to some animals but not necessarily humans, giving it some validity.
• An issue with Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation is that Bowlby failed to distinguish deprivation and privation.


  Rutter (1976) claimed that Bowlby was muddling the two concepts of deprivation and privation together. Deprivation is the loss of the primary attachment figure after attachment has developed, while privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place. Rutter claimed that the severe long-term damage Bowlbly associated with deprivation is more likely to be because of privation. This distinction would improve Bowlby's theory.
• A strength of research into Romanian orphans is that it has real-life applications. Now do the rest.


  Studying Romanian orphans has enhanced our understanding of the effects of institutionalisation. Such results have led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions. For instance, orphanages and children's homes now avoid having many caregivers for each child and instead ensure that a much smaller number of people - perhaps one or 2 - play a central role for the child. This person is called the key worker, meaning that children have the chance to develop normal attachments and helps avoid disinhibited attachment. This shows that research into Romanian orphans have been immensely valuable in practical terms.
• A strength of research into Romanian orphans is that they have fewer extraneous variables than other orphan studies. Now do the rest.


  Many studies before the Romanian orphans became available to study often involved children who had experienced loss or trauma before they were institutionalised, like neglect or bereavement. It was very difficult to observe the effects of institutionalisation in isolation as the children were dealing with multiple factors that functioned as confounding participant variables. In the case of Romanian orphans it has been possible to study institutionalisation without these confounding variables, meaning that the findings have increased internal validity.
• A limitation of research into Romanian orphans is that Romanian orphanages weren't typical.


  Although much useful data about institutionalisation has derived from Romanian orphan studies, it's possible that the conditions were so bad that results cannot be applied to understanding the impact of better quality institutional care or any situation where children experience deprivation. Romanian orphanages had particularly poor standards of care, particularly when it to forming any relationship with the children, and extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation. This is a limitation of research into Romanian orphans as the unusual situational variables mean that the studies may lack generalisability.