3. attachment Flashcards
attachment
infants and caregivers develop deep and lasting emotional bonds. both members of this emotional relationship seek closeness and feel more secure when close to their attachment figure
reciprocity
a mutual turn-taking form of interaction. both caregiver and infant contribute to the interaction by responding to the other’s signals and cues
interactional synchrony
a simultaneous interaction between the infant and the caregiver, who appear to be acting rhythmically, with matching, coordinated behaviour and matching emotional states
imitation
the infant directly copies the caregiver’s expression
sensitive responsiveness
the adult caregiver correctly interprets the meaning of the infant’s communication and is motivated to respond appropriately
caregiver interactions in humans strengths (AO3)
high internal validity & real life application
― These studies are usually controlled observations filmed in a lab
➥ any external stimuli won’t distract a baby
➥ filming it means observations can be played back and analysed later
➥ this means it is unlikely that researchers will miss seeing key behaviours
― Knowledge about attachment has real-life application
➥ Isabella et al. found achievement of interactional synchrony predicted development of good quality attachment
➥ this can help mothers develop a better attachment with their babies
caregiver-infant interactions in humans limitations (AO3)
decreased validity & social sensitivity
― Some actions may be an unconscious reflex response rather than an actual one
➥ a subtle face change may be a reflex of a baby passing wind as opposed to reciprocity
➥ could lead to behaviour being recorded inaccurately or misinterpreted
➥ which may decrease validity
― Social sensitivity is a concern
➥ some women may find their life choices criticsed
➥ such as mothers who decide to return to work shortly after giving birth and supposedly cannot develop a high level of interactional synchrony with their infant
Schaffer: stages of attachment & age
― asocial (0 to 6 weeks)
― indiscriminate attachment (6 weeks to 7 months)
― discriminate attachment (7 to 9 months)
― multiple attachment (from 9 months)
asocial (0 to 6 weeks)
babies display innate behaviours (crying/smiling) that ensure proximity to any potential caregiver. anyone can comfort them, as they do not prefer any individual caregiver
indiscriminate attachment (6 weeks to 7 months)
infants develop the ability to tell the difference between familiar and unfamiliar individuals, smiling more at the people they see frequently
specific attachment (7 to 9 months)
babies form a strong attachment to a primary caregiver, most often their mother. It is in this stage that separation anxiety and stranger anxiety develop
multiple attachment (from 9 months)
the infant starts to form attachments with other regular caregivers (like fathers, grandparents, siblings), and stranger anxiety starts to decrease
Schaffer & Emerson procedure
Schaffer and Emerson conducted a longitudinal observation
― 60 working class babies and their families from Glasgow were studied
➥ In the first year, data was collected through monthly observations & interviews, with an additional follow-up visit at 18 months
➥ Two types of behaviour were assessed: stranger anxiety (signs of discomfort when left with the researcher) and separation anxiety (discomfort when the primary caregiver moved to another room)
Schaffer: stages of attachment strengths (AO3)
separation anxiety & high mundane realism
― It was found that separation anxiety occured in most babies by 25 to 32 weeks. In the 18-month follow-up, 87% had developed multiple attachments. The strongest attachment was to those mothers with consistent caregiver-infant interaction.
― As infants and their families were observed in their own home, the study had a high level of mundane realism
➥ the experience for the infants were normal. Strangers visiting the family home and the caregiver temporarily leaving the room are normal occurrences. This suggests the behaviour recorded was valid.
Schaffer: stages of attachment limitation (AO3)
generalisability
― The sample in Schaffer’s study may not be generalisable or may have temporary validity
➥ it only included a group of working-class mothers in 1960s Glasgow
➥ child-rearing practices have likely changed significantly in the past 60 years
the role of the father: importance of active play
― fathers are seen to engage babies in active ‘play’ activities more consistently than mothers
― fathers’ interactions emphasise stimulation, and so it is thought their role is to encourage risk-taking behaviours, compared to the more comforting style of mothers
the role of the father: as a primary caregiver
― in modern Western society, mothers are more likely to take part in the workplace
― there is evidence to suggest that if men take on the role of primary caregivers, their interactional style changes to be more like mothers, increasing their capacity for sensitive responsiveness.
the role of the father strengths (AO3)
― Field observed primary caretaker mothers and fathers, and secondary caretaker fathers interacting with their 4-month-old infants
➥ found fathers focused more on game playing and less on holding
➥ the primary caretaker fathers showed more sensitively responsive behaviour, similar to mothers.
➥ for example, they used more smiling and child-directed speech than secondary caretaker fathers
― Verissimo
➥ observed preschool children’s relationships with their mothers and fathers
➥ later conducted a follow-up assessment of social interactions when the child started nursery.
➥ a strong attachment to the father was the best predictor of the ability to make friends in school, suggesting an important role for fathers in socialisation
Lorenz: imprinting
certain animals, such as many species of birds, are known to attach to their mothers strongly; the infant animal will then follow their mother. Lorenz termed this process imprinting and tested this early bond
Lorenz procedure
Greylag Goose eggs were randomly divided
➥ half were taken to be hatched by Lorenz using an incubator
➥ the other half were hatched naturally by the biological mother
In later studies, he varied the time between hatching and when the gosling first observed a moving object
Lorenz findings
― The goslings who Lorenz had hatched imprinted on him, following him rather than the Mother Goose
➥ goslings hatched in a natural environment imprinted on the Mother goose and followed her.
Lorenz placed all of the goslings in a box
➥ were then released
➥ the goslings who had imprinted on Lorenz had found him and continued to follow him
― Lorenz found the goslings had a critical period of around 32 hours; if a gosling did not see a large moving object to imprint on in these first few hours, it lost the ability to imprint
Harlow and contact comfort
A test of the ‘cupboard love’ theory, that babies love mothers because they feed them
Harlow procedure
Infant Rhesus Macaque monkeys were removed from their biological mothes and placed in cages with surrogate mothers.
➥ One surrogate mother (wire monkey) provided milk
➥ The other surrogate mother (cloth monkey) provided warmth and comfort
The time spent with the mother was recorded, as well as which surrogate the infant ran to when frightened by a mechanical monkey
Harlow findings
― The infant monkeys spent most of their time with the comfort-providing ‘cloth mother’
➥ visited the ‘food mother’ when they needed to eat but quickly returning to the cloth mother for comfort
― The infant monkeys returned to the cloth mother when frightened
➥ monkeys without access to a cloth mother showed signs of stress-related illness
― In follow-up
➥ Harlow found that the maternal deprivation in his studies had resulted in permanent social disorders in the monkeys as adults
➥ including difficulty in mating behaviour and rasing their offspring
― Found that there was a 90 day period for attachment to occur otherwise it would be permanent
Dolland and Miller’s cupboard love theory
argued that infants become attached to their caregiver because they learn that their caregiver provides food
classical conditioning: cupboard love
― food is initially an unconditioned stimulus & instinctively provides pleasure
― as mother is present every time baby is fed, the mother becomes associated with food
➥ she changes from being a neutral stimulus to a conditioned stimulus
― in the presence of the mother, the infant experiences a conditioned pleasure response
positive reinforcement: attachment
when a parent feeds a crying baby, the baby is more likely to repeat the crying behaviour to get food (pleasurable stimulus)
negative reinforcement: attachment
the parents’ feeding behaviour is negatively reinforced by the baby stopping its crying behaviour when fed
primary drive
we don’t need to learn to want to eat or sleep as they are based on biological needs
secondary drive
we learn as infants to want attachment because we learn the secondary drive will ultimately lead to satisfying a primary drive
learning theory strengths (AO3)
face validity & other learning approaches (social learning theory)
The learning theory has face validity
― likely that some conditioning leads to attachment however the infant may not associate the caregiver with food
➥ the baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with a particular adult
― this may influence the baby’s choice of their main attachment figure
Behaviourism is only one learning approach
― social learning theory might better explain attachment
➥ social learning theory is the theory that behaviour is learnt through imitation of role models
― parents teach children to love them by demonstrating attachment behaviours (e.g. hugging) and reinforce by showing approval when babies display their own attachment behaviours
learning theory limitations (AO3)
cupboard love theory (contact comfort) & bowlby’s monotropic theory
There is evidence that rejects the cupboard love theory
― Harlow’s research on rhesus monkeys showed infant monkeys did not become attached to the food dispensing monkey
➥ they became attached to the cloth mother due to contact comfort
― suggests attachment is instinctual rather than learned
There are alternate theories of attachment that don’t depend on learning theory
― bowlby’s monotropic theory gives an evolutionary explanation for attachment in caregivers and infants
➥ argue babies have an instinct to attach to their primary caregiver as they provide security
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
an evolutional explanation of attachment
― bowlby argues infants have an innate drive to form a strong attachment to their mother (monotropy) & stay in close proximity as forming a strong attachment is vital to infants’ survival
ASCMI
a snapchat makes images
― adaptive
― social releasers
― critical period
― monotropy
― internal working model
adaptive
attachment is an innate system that has evolved through natural selection because it gives evolutionary advantage
➥ Bowlby was influenced by Lorenz’ work. attachment in humans ensures infants stay close to their caregivers, enabling survival
social releasers
babies are born with innate ‘social releasers’ that activate the adult attachment system
➥ social releasers help to build the bond
critical period
Bowlby believed that around 6 months the attachment system is most active/sensitive
― then later extended this to be a ‘sensitive period’ of up to around 2 years of age
➥ if an attachment to the mother is not formed in this time, then a child will find it much harder to form one in the future
monotropy
law of continuity & law of accumulated separation
infants have an innate tendency to form one special attachment to one ‘primary attachment figure’
➥ the law of continuity: care should be constant and predictable to aid strong attachment
➥ law of accumulated separation: the negative effects of separation add up — ‘the safest dose is zero dose’
internal working model
infants form a mental representation of their relationship with their primary caregiver, which serves as a model template for future relationships
➥ if an infant experiences relationships to be loving and reliable, they will impact future relationships to be so
➥ the internal working model also impacts on the infant’s ability to be a parent themselves when older (continuity hypothesis)
role of social releasers & support for internal working model
bowlby’s monotropic theory strengths (AO3)
brazelton’ still face experiment & bailey generational attachment
There is evidence supporting the role of social releasers
― clear evidence that cute baby behaviours are designed to elict interaction from caregivers
― brazelton et al. observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers and instructed primary attachment figures to ignore their babies’ social releasers
➥ babies became distressed when social releasers weren’t reciprocated
― illustrates the role of social releasers in emotional development and suggests that they are important in the process of attachment development
Bowlby’s monotropic theory supports the internal working model
― the idea of the internal working model predicts patterns of attachment will be passed down from one generation to the next
― bailey et al. assessed attachment relationships and attachment quality in 99 mothers and their 1-year-old babies
➥ found that mothers with poor attachment to their own primary attachment figures were more likely to have poorly attached babies
― supports bowlby’s ideas that mothers’ ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their internal working models
bowlby’s monotropic theory limitations (AO3)
lack of validity & laws of continuity and accumulated separation
The concept of monotropy lacks validity
― Schaffer and Emerson found that a significant minority of babies formed multiple attachments at the same time
― which means the first attachment may simply mean it is just stronger and not necessarily different in quality
― means bowlby may have been incorrect that there is a unique quality and important to the child’s primary attachment
The laws of continuity and accumulated separation suggest mothers who work may negatively affect their child’s emotional development
― erica burman pointed out this belief sets up mothers to take the blame for anything that goes wrong for the child in the future
― also gives people an excuse to restrict mothers’ activities, for example returning to work
attachment behaviours
— proximity seeking
— exploration and secure-base behaviour
— separation anxiety
— stranger anxiety
— reunion response
insecure avoidant attachment (type A)
― keeps distance from mother (not a secure base); exploring freely
― low stranger anxiety
― low separation anxiety
― indifferent to reunion and avoids contact
secure attachment (type B)
― infants use their mother as a safe base; explore environment
― moderate level of stranger anxiety
― show high levels of separation anxiety
― reunion response allows them to settle quickly back to exploration
insecure resistant attachment (type C)
― infants do not explore environment; seeking closeness to mother
― high stranger anxiety
― high separation anxiety
― reunion response has mixed emotions (infant seems to want and reject mother’s attention)
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation procedure
― 106 infants (48 to 57 weeks) and their mothers participated
― conducted in a controlled lab setting (room with toys)
― there were two observers behind a one-way mirror and recorded infants’ responses at each stage
― stages assessed attachment behaviours
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation findings
― 66% of infants were classified as secure (type B)
― 34% of infants were classified as insecure
➥ 22% of infants were insecure-avoidant (type A), due to low sensitive responsiveness
➥ 12% of infants were insecure-resistant (type C), due to inconsistent sensitive responsiveness
Ainsworth’s research suggests that a secure attachment develops due to the attention of a consistently sensitively responsive mother
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation strengths (AO3)
good predictive validity & good inter-rater reliability
Its outcome predicts a number of aspects of the baby’s later development
― research has shown that babies and toddlers assessed as secure tend to have better outcomes than others across their lives
➥ includes better achievement in school and less involvement in bulling; and better mental health in adulthood
― babies assessed as having insecure-resistant and those with alternate attachment types tend to have the worst outcomes
― this suggests that the Strange Situation measures something real and meaningful in a baby’s development
There is also good inter-rater reliability
― Johanna Bick tested inter-rater reliability for the Strange Situation and found agreement of attachment type in 94% of cases
― this high level of reliability may be because the procedure takes place under condtrolled conditions
➥ also because certain behaviours (e,g. proximity seeking and stranger anxiety) involve large movements and therefore easy to observe
― this means that we can be confident that attachment type as assessed by the Strange Situation does not depend on subjective judgements
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation limitations (AO3)
strange situation may not measure attachment & may be culture-bound
The idea of ‘attachment types’ doesn’t consider temperament of the child
― Strange Situation measures something important that is associated with later development
― However, not all psychologists believe that this something is attachment
➥ e.g. Jerome Kagan suggested that genetically-influenced anxiety levels could be variations in attachment behaviour
― This means that the Strange Situation may not actually measure attachment
The Strange Situation also may not be a valid measure of attachment in different cultural contexts
― The Strange Situation was developed in Britain and the US which may make it culture bound
➥ babies have different experiences in different cultures and these experiences may impact their responses
― For example, in one Japanese study, babies displayed very high levels of separation anxiety and so a disproportionate number were classified as insecure-resistant.
➥ Takahashi suggests that this anxiety response was not due to high rates of attachment insecurity but to the experience in Japan where mother-baby separation is very rare
― This means it is very difficult to know what the Strange Situation is measured when used outside of Europe and the US.
Van Ijzendoorn’s procedure
― conducted a large-scale meta-analysis of 2000 infants in 32 studies from 8 countries (15 in the US) using the ‘strange situation’
van Ijzendoorn’s findings
― general patterns:
➥ secure attachment was the most common type in all countries
➥ insecure resistant was the least common type
➥ avoidant more common in individualistic Western cultures; resistant in collectivist non-Western culture
― individual findings:
➥ germany had the most insecure-avoidant infants (35%)
➥ japan had the most insecure resistant (27%)
➥ china had the least secure infants (50%)
➥ the UK had 22% avoidant; 75% secure; and 3% resistant
cultural variations strengths (AO3)
indigenous psychologists
Most of the studies were conducted by indigenous psychologists
➥ this means that they are from the same cultural background as the participants
― For example, Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg included research by a German team and Keiko Takahashi, who is Japanese.
― This kind of research means that many of the potential problems in cross-cultural research can be avoided
➥ such as researchers’ misunderstandings of the language used by participants or having difficulty communicating instructions to them. DIfficulties can also include bias because of one nation’s stereotypes of another.
― This means there is an excellent chance that researchers and participants communicated successfully, enhancing validity of the data collected.
cultural attachment limitations (AO3)
confounding variables & imposed etic
One limitation is the impact of confounding variables on findings
― Sample characteristics such as poverty, social class, and urban/rural make-up can confound results as can the age of participants studied in different countries.
― Environmental characteristics may also play a role, such as the amount of toys and the size of the room. Less visible proximity-seeking because of room size might make a child more likely to be classified as avoidant.
― This means that looking at attachment behaviour in different non-matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment.
Another limitation is imposed etic.
➥ this is when we assume an idea or technique that works in one cultural context will work in another
― An example of this is the use of babies’ response to reunion with the caregiver in the Strange Situation.
― In Britain and the US, lack of affection on reunion may indicate an avoidant attachment; but in Germany, it would more likely be interpreted as independence rather than insecurity.
― This means that the behaviours measured by Strange Situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts, and comparing them across cultures is meaningless.
consequences of maternal deprivation
― delinquency
― affectionless psychopathy
― low IQ
separation vs deprivation
― separation: the child is not in the presence of the primary attachment figure
― deprivation: the prolonged separation between the infant and primary caregiver which leads to a loss of attachment
effects of maternal deprivation on development
― intellectual development: bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period, they would experience delayed intellectual development, characterised by abnormally low IQ
― emotional development: bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others, which prevents a person developing fulfilling relationships
Bowlby’s 44 thieves procedure
― consisted of 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
― all ‘thieves’ were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy
― their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether the ‘thieves’ had prolonged early separations from their mothers
― the sample was compared to a control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people
Bowlby 44 thieves findings
― found that 14 of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths; 12 of these had prolonged separation from their mothers during the critical period
― only 5 of the remaining 30 ‘thieves’ had experienced separations
― only two participants in the control group of 44 had experienced long separations
bowlby’s maternal deprivation limitations (AO3)
argument against critcal period & deprivation vs privation
A limitation of the theory is Bowlby’s idea of a critical period
➥ he believed damage was inevitable if a child had not formed an attachment in the first 2 & 1/2 years of life
― However, there is evidence to suggest that good quality aftercare can prevent most of this damage.
― For example, Jamila Koluchova reported the case of the Czech Twins. They had experienced very severe physical and emotional abuse form the age of 18 months up until they were 7 years old.
― They recieved excellent care and by their teens they had fully recovered from the severe emotional damage they had.
― This means that lasting harm is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation.
Another limitation of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation is his confusion between different types of early experience.
➥ Michael Rutter drew an important distinction between two types of early negative experience.
― Deprivation strictly refers to the loss of the primary attachment figure after the attachment had developed; privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place.
― Rutter pointed out that the severe long-term damage associated with deprivation is more likely to be the result of privation.
— Similarly, many of the children in the 44 thieves had disrupted early lives and may have never formed strong attachments.
― This means that Bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation on children’s development.
Rutter ERA (English and Romanian adoptee) study procedure
― Rutter followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans as part of the ERA study
― the children had been adopted by families in the UK
― physical, cognitive, and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11, 15, and 22-25 years.
― a group of 52 children from the UK adopted around the same time served as a control group
Rutter ERA findings
― mean IQ of those adopted before 6 months old was 102
― mean IQ for those adopted between 6 months and 2 years was 86
― mean IQ for those adopted after 2 years was 77
― ADHD was more common in 15- and 22-25-year old samples
― children adopted after six months showed signs of disinhibited attachment
disinhibited attachment characteristics
― attention-seeking
― clinginess
― inappropriate social behaviour directed at all adults
romanian orphan studies strengths (AO3)
real-life application & lack of confounding variables
One strength of the Romanian orphanage studies is their application to improve conditions for children growing up outside their family home
― Studying Romanian orphans has led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions in order to prevent damaging effects
― For example, orphanages and children’s homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child and instead ensure that only one or two key workers play a central role for the child
― This means that children in institutional care have a chance to develop normal attachments and disinhibited attachment is avoided.
There is also a lack of confounding variables.
― There were many orphan studies before the Romanian orphans (e.G orphans in WWII). Many of the children studied in orpahanges had experienced varying degrees of trauama and it is difficult to disentangle from the effects of neglect, physical abuse, and institutional care.
― However, the children from the Romanian orphanages had been handed over by loving parents who could not afford to keep them.
― This means that results were much less likely to be confounded by other negative early experiences.
romanian orphan studies limitations (AO3)
confounding variables + generalisable?
& lack of data on development
On the other hand, studying children from Romanian orphanages might have introduced different confounding variables
― For example, Romanian orphanages had particularly poor standards of care and extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation
― This means that the harmful effects seen in studies of Romanian orphans may represent the effects of poor institutional care, rather than institutional care per se.
― This means that the Romanian orphans are not generalisable to other institutions, as the environments were so bad they are specific to those orphanages
Another limitation of the Romanian orphanage studies is the current lack of data on adult development
― The latest data from the ERA study is from when the adoptees were in their 20’s. This means that we do not yet have enough data about the long-term effects of early institutionalisation into later adulthood.
― For example, we will have to wait some time before we know the long-term impact or maintaining and forming romantic relationships and parenting ability.
― This means that it will be some time before we know more completely what the long-term effects are for the Romanian orphans. It is possible that late-adopted children may ‘catch up’.
what did Hanzer and Shaver say about the Internal Working Model?
― argue that an adult’s relationship type is a continuation of their infant attachment style (Ainsworth’s Type A, Type B, and Type C attachment)
― they argue that children with a secure attachment type will become more socially capable in childhood and adult hood than insecure types due to IWM
influence of early attachment strengths (AO3)
A strength of the research into attachment and later relationships is supporting evidence.
― Reviews of evidence, such as Fearon and Roisman, have concluded that early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional wellbeing, and attachment to theiw own children.
― Whilst insecure-avoidant attachment seems to convey fairly mild disadvantages for any aspect of development, disorganaised attachment is strongly associated with later mental disorder.
― This means that **secure attachment as a baby appears to convey advantages **for future development while disorganised attachment appears to seriously disadvantage children
