Explanations of Attachment

• The law of continuity refers to the more constant and predictable a child's care, the better the quality of their attachment; the mother should be present 24/7
• The law of accumulated separation refers to the effects of every separation from the mother add up, and the safest dose is therefore a zero dose
• Learning Theory- Attachment & Classical Conditioning:

  Before conditioning- food (US) -> pleasure (UR)

  During conditioning- food (US) + caregiver (NS) -> pleasure (UR)

  After conditioning- caregiver (CS) -> pleasure (CR); leads to attachment
• Learning Theory- Attachment & Operant Conditioning:

  Positive reinforcement- babies cry when hungry due to uncomfortable state, caregiver provides food, producing pleasure which is rewarding. Crying will be repeated as it has been rewarded

  Negative reinforcement- caregiver is rewarded when baby stop crying, mother will feed baby to stop stress from seeing baby cry. Increases crying behaviour but both mother and child receive pleasure- baby receives attention. Results in emotional bond forming
• S- Dollar & Miller (1950) (Learning Theory):

  Secondary drive hypothesis- primary drives (essential for survival e.g. eating when hungry) become associated with secondary drives (e.g. emotional closeness). Attachment is a two-way process that the caregiver must also learn, this occurs through negative reinforcement (caregiver feels pleasure when infant is no long distressed)
• W- Schaffer & Emerson (1964) (Learning Theory):

  Studied attachments of 60 infants from birth finding significant number formed attachments with a person OTHER than the one doing the feeding, etc.; primary attachment was often with the father and not the mother. Quality of interaction with the infant was most important. Stronger attachments were formed with the person who was most sensitive to the infant's needs than those who feed the baby. Reduces credibility of the cupboard love theory (infant attaches to caregiver who feed them)
• W- Harlow (Learning Theory):

  Baby rhesus monkeys spent more time with cloth surrogate mother providing no food in comparison to wire surrogate mother providing food. Shows that baby monkeys do not form attachments based on presence of food alone/ prefer contact. Findings go against cupboard love theory, suggest alternative processes may have been ignored
• W- Bowlby's alternative theory (Learning Theory):

  Bowlby believed infants have an innate readiness during the critical period to form an attachment to the primary caregiver to protect them from harm. Evolutionary perspective explains HOW attachment forms and WHY it enhances survival. Bowlby's theory gives a more comprehensive explanation of attachment, does not reduce a complex emotional bond as attachment to stimulus-response association
• Key elements of Bowlby's Monotropic Theory:

  1. Adaptive
  2. Social releasers
  3. Critical period
  4. Monotropy
  5. Internal Working Model
• Bowlby's Monotropic Theory:

  Adaptive- attachments give humans an advantage, increasing survival; an infant with an attachment is kept safe, given food and kept warm. Attachment is innate due to survival advantages
• Bowlby's Monotropic Theory:

  Social Releasers- babies are born with tendency to display innate behaviours (social releasers) which ensure proximity with the attachment figure- these are species-specific behaviours
• Bowlby's Monotropic Theory:

  Critical Period- there is a critical period for developing an attachment (2.5 years), if an attachment has not developed during this time, it may not happen at all. Bowlby later proposed a sensitive period (up to 5 y/o). If attachment not formed in critical period, child is damaged for life, socially, intellectually and physically
• Bowlby's Monotropic Theory:

  Internal Working Model- IWM is a cognitive framework comprising mental representations for understanding the world, self and others; based on relationships with primary caregiver. Prototype for all future social relationships and allows individuals to predict, control and manipulate interactions with others
• S- Animal studies support critical period (Bowlby):

  Lorenz found that goslings, mobile soon after birth, imprint on mothers within their first few days. Lorenz referred to this imprinting period as the critical period as birds attach to the mother in this limited time. Supports idea that attachment is adaptive and promotes survival. Bowlby's critical period proposed in humans is supported by animals studies; increasing credibility
• W- Rutter (Bowlby):

  Rutter's Romanian orphans study showed children's limited ability to form attachments with others. However, if adopted into stable homes, attachments did form, even in children over 2.5 years. Although it was more difficult the older the child was, attachments were still made with children who were 7 and 8 y/o. Contradicts Bowlby's claim that attachment cannot be formed outside the critical period
• S- Research Support (Bowlby):

  Attachment provides an internal working model for future relationships. Hazan & Shaver (1987) created love questionnaire and found anxious lovers were jealous and preoccupied with a partner, avoidant adults shy away from intimacy for fear of being hurt, secure attachments were the most likely to have good long-lasting romantic relationships. Secure adults reported parents to be respectful and more accepting; avoidant adults reported parents as critical and distant. Childhood attachment is IWM for future relationship; increasing credibility of Bowlby's theory
• S- Animal Studies (Bowlby):

  Sensitive mother is important to form good IWM. Harlow's showed love rather than food produced attachment in monkeys. Baby monkeys separated at birth from mother and raised with cloth surrogate mother providing comfort + no food, and wire mother providing food + no comfort. Monkeys spent most time with cloth mother, only went to wire mother for food. Harlow shows monkeys who spent time with wire mother had mating problems to mate and were bad parents with their offspring. Attachment is a template for future relationships, increasing credibility
• W- Evidence to refute monotropy (Bowlby):

  Schaffer & Emerson conducted natural observation/ interviews in Glasgow with working-class families. Infants form attachments to most interactive and sensitive caregiver to infants' signals/ facial expressions; but not necessarily who spent most time with infant. Suggested children have multiple attachments with caregivers other than mother; significant minority of children form multiple attachments at same time, rather than only one special attachment first. Refutes Bowlby's monotropic theory as quality > quantity