attachement Flashcards
LORENZO A01
Lorenz conducted an experiment into imprinting in Geese in which he aimed to see if they would imprint on the first moving thing that they saw even if it was a human being. He randomly divided a clutch of goose eggs. Half hatched in a natural environment (with their mother) and half hatched an incubator where the first moving thing they saw was Lorenz. He found that the geese that saw him first followed him everywhere. He also found that there was a critical period of a few hours where imprinting occurred. He concluded that geese will imprint on the first moving thing they see.
LORENZO A03
Lorenz’s research on geese may not be applicable to humans. Birds are different to mammals because mammalian mothers show more emotional attachment to their infants. Therefore we may not be able to extrapolate these findings to human beings and it may not tell us too much about our own development.
Some have also questioned his conclusions. He found that the geese who imprinted on a human showed courtship behaviour towards humans later on. However, Guiton found that chickens imprinted on washing up gloves eventually learned to prefer mating with chickens. Therefore Lorenz’s conclusions about imprinting being permanent may not be valid.
HARLOW A01
Harlow conducted an experiment to see whether infant monkeys are more likely to attach to the provider of food or comfort. He reared infant Rhesus monkeys with two fake surrogate mothers. One provided food but was simply made of wire and one was covered in cloth so provided comfort. He found that the monkeys were more attached to the cloth covered mother even when the wire mother provided food. They ran to the soft mother when frightened and spent most of their day on it. He concluded that contact comfort is more important than food for attachment. Extension – he also found that those monkeys reared without a real mother suffered severe consequences, they were more aggressive, less skilled in mating and neglected (sometimes even killed) their own offspring.
HARLOW A03
Harlow’s research has practical value. He found that monkeys raised without real mothers were very dysfunctional as adults neglecting their own infants. This tells us that infant monkeys in zoos need proper attachment figures to develop normally so this is useful research.
However, Harlow’s research can be criticised for being unethical. The monkeys were seriously emotionally harmed by being taken away from their mothers. We may be able to generalise these findings as monkeys are quite human-like but this also means their suffering would be human-like. It is therefore questionable whether the findings are useful enough to justify the findings.
Explanations of attachment: Learning theory
The learning theory of attachment claims that infants learn to become attached to their caregivers by processes of association or conditioning.
This can occur by classical conditioning, where an unconditioned stimulus (a naturally occurring stimulus) like food causes pleasure when eaten; this is unconditioned responses, as it is not learnt.
Caregivers provide the food and subsequent pleasure for the infant. So their presence becomes associated with the pleasure caused by eating food.
The caregiver then becomes a conditioned stimulus, as the infant has now learnt to associate the caregiver with pleasure and so becomes attached to them.
Another type of conditioning is operant conditioning, where infants learn to carry on with specific behaviours or stop as a result of their consequences. For example crying when hungry causes the caregiver to feed them, so the crying behaviour is helpful as it reduces hunger (this is negative reinforcement). This encourages the infant’s needs to be met by the caregiver, and the caregiver is encouraged to continue caring for the infant as desirable behaviour such as smiling are being continued.
Explanations of attachment: Learning theory A03
One weakness of the learning theory explanation of attachment is the fact that Harlow’s research findings contradict this explanation. The Rhesus monkey ran to the cloth mother when he was scared rather than the wire mother that fed him. Learning theory says that we attach to whoever feeds us which was not found here.
One strength of this explanation is the fact that it is not gender biased. Whoever feeds the baby will be the attachment figure. This means that unlike Bolwby’s theory it cannot be used as a tool of oppression against women.
However this theory has been criticised for being too simple it ignores lots of important factors that could play a role in a baby’s attachment such as comfort from feeling secure or innate drives to attach for survival (as stated by Bolwby). So this is possibly not a complete theory.
Finally the real life situation of the Israeli Kibbutz also casts doubt over the validity of learning theory for attachment because babies are fed by the metapelet (not their mother) but still show stronger attachment to mother therefore this shows that food is not the only reason for attachment
Explanations of attachment: Bowlby’s monotropic theory (ASCMI) A03
Bowlby (1958) proposed that human infants have an innate tendency to form attachments to their primary care giver, most often their mother.
He believed that attachments are Adaptive making us more likely to survive. This is because if an infant has an attachment to a caregiver, they are kept safe, given food, and kept warm. Babies have Social releasers, which ‘unlock’ the innate tendency of adults to care for them. These Social releasers are both: physical – the typical ‘baby face’ features and body proportions and behavioural – e.g. crying, cooing. Babies have to form the attachment with their caregiver during a Critical period. This is between birth and 2½ years old. Bowlby said that if this didn’t happen, the child would be damaged for life – socially, emotionally, intellectually, and physically. Bowlby believed that infants form one very special attachment with their mother. This special, intense attachment is called Monotropy. If the mother isn’t available, the infant could bond with another ever-present, adult, mother-substitute. Through the monotropic attachment, the infant would form an Internal working model. This is a special model for relationships. All the child’s future adult relationships will be based on the relationship with the mother.
Explanations of attachment: Bowlby’s monotropic theory (ASCMI) - a03
There is mixed evidence for monotropy. Schaffer and Emerson did find that infants generally attached to one attachment figure first but some seemed to be able to form multiple attachments at the same time. This contradicts Bowlby’s idea of monotropy being the unique special attachment.
There is also support for the internal working model. Bailey found that mothers had similar attachment styles to their own mothers as to their babies. Therefore this evidence suggests that the internal working model comes from our parents and is continued with our own children as Bowlby predicted.
Monotropy is a socially sensitive concept. The idea of monotropy being the most important attachment could put too much pressure on mothers staying at home with the baby and limiting their choices. This may have been involved in the government’s decision not to offer free childcare to under 5s so this may have affected many people.
This may also have negative economic implications. If the mum earns more in a 2 parent household and she has to stay at home with the child (so as not to break the monotropic attachment) they may sacrifice their highest possible earning as a family. So they will pay less tax and consume less
Cultural variations of attachment - A03
van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg conducted a meta-analysis on cultural variation in proportions of secure, insecure avoidant and insecure resistant attachments. They looked at differences within and between countries. They found 32 studies of attachment where the strange situation had been used in 8 different countries. Overall, there were 1990 children studied. Countries studied included USA, Germany, Isreal, Japan, China, Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands
It was found that secure attachment was the most common attachment type in all countries but percentages ranged from 50% in China to 75% in Britain. In collectivist samples (that emphasis importance of group goals over individual goals – China, Japan, Israel) the rate of insecure resistant attachment was highest (above 25%). Germany had the highest % of insecure avoidant attachments. This suggests there are significant cultural variations in insecure attachment types. Variations between results of studies within the same country were actually 150% greater than between countries.
Types of attachmen
Ainsworth studied types of attachment with the strange situation procedure. This was a controlled observation involving an infant and caregiver. The infant was observed in a number of unfamiliar situations designed to be mildly stressful including the mother leaving the room, the presence of a stranger and the mother returning.
Ainsworth used a number of behavioural categories to classify the behaviour of the infant including stranger and separation anxiety, response to reunion and secure base behaviour.
It was found that there are 3 types of attachment. Most infants (60-75%) had secure attachments (moderate separation and stranger anxiety, secure base behaviour, proximity seeking and comfort on reunion).
20-25% had insecure avoidant attachments (low separation and stranger anxiety, no secure base behaviour, less proximity seeking and does not seek comfort on reunion).
Finally, 3% of infants had insecure resistant attachments (high separation and stranger anxiety, less exploring, more proximity seeking and seeks but resists comfort on reunion). It was concluded that most infants have secure attachments and the most common insecure attachment is avoidant.
Ainsworth also said that secure attachments are created when mothers have been responsive to their needs. Insecure avoidant attachments are created when mothers have often not been responsive and insecure resistant attachments are created when mothers are inconsistent (sometimes responding sometimes ignoring).
Cultural variations of attachment
van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg conducted a meta-analysis on cultural variation in proportions of secure, insecure avoidant and insecure resistant attachments. They looked at differences within and between countries.
They found 32 studies of attachment where the strange situation had been used in 8 different countries. Overall, there were 1990 children studied. Countries studied included USA, Germany, Isreal, Japan, China, Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands
It was found that secure attachment was the most common attachment type in all countries but percentages ranged from 50% in China to 75% in Britain.
In collectivist samples (that emphasis importance of group goals over individual goals – China, Japan, Israel) the rate of insecure resistant attachment was highest (above 25%).
Germany had the highest % of insecure avoidant attachments.
This suggests there are significant cultural variations in insecure attachment types. Variations between results of studies within the same country were actually 150% greater than between countries
Cultural variations of attachment a03
One strength of this research is the size of the sample. As this was a meta-analysis they used data from nearly 2000 babies. Large samples increase internal validity because they reduce the influence of unusual participants or biased methodology.
However, the samples used may not have reflected the whole countries they were trying to represent. Within any country there will be many cultures (as shown by the greater variation within countries) so this casts doubt on the idea that we can make a conclusion about a whole country from one sample used here.
Additionally, the use of the strange situation to judge attachment types in other countries should be questioned. The strange situation was designed by an American (Ainsworth) and is based on American/ British ideals and so may not be applicable to other countries. For example, the ideal of pleasure at reunion may be a western ideal so when other countries do not show this they are interpreted as insecure. This will lead to a misrepresentation of attachment and is an example of cultural bias.
A further issue with the use of the strange situation is that temperament of the infant may be a confounding variable. Ainsworth assumed that the quality of attachment was the main influence on separation/ stranger anxiety but the genetic personality of the child may mean they are more prone to this anxiety. So the strange situation may not actually be measuring attachment type but temperament (lowering the internal validity).
Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis (MDH)
Bowlby said continuous emotional maternal care from a mother (or substitute) is necessary for normal emotional and intellectual development. He said that if we suffer maternal deprivation in the critical period (attachment is disrupted for a significant amount of time) there may be serious consequences. Intellectual development is affected and will result in abnormally low IQ. Deprivation will also lead to affectionless psychopathy – the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion for others. This can lead to a lack of normal relationships and even crime.
Bowlby supported his MDH with his 44 thieves study. He interviewed 44 delinquent teenagers accused of stealing. Families were also interviewed to establish prolonged separations from mothers. The thieves were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy characterised by a lack of affection, guilt or empathy. He found that 14 out of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths. Of those 14, 12 had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first 2 years of life. Only 5 of the remaining thieves had experienced prolonged separations. This suggests that prolonged/ early deprivation causes psychopathy.
Bowlby’s findings are supported by those of Harlow. It was found that Monkeys without a caregiver showed signs of emotional disturbance and were neglectful and aggressive. This supports Bowlby’s conclusions about emotional development being hindered by prolonged separation. However, Bowlby’s theory cannot explain the fact that monkeys within these studies who were kept with other infant monkeys did not show this emotional disturbance which suggests that the maternal figure may not be the one and only essential attachment for healthy development.
Lewis partially replicated Bowlby’s study on a larger scale and did not find any link with early long term separation and criminality or difficulty forming relationships. This suggests that other factors may be involved that will lead to these problems.
Bowlby has been criticised for ignoring the distinction between deprivation (long term loss of maternal figure after attachment is formed) and privation (never making an attachment at all). Some of Bowlby’s thieves would have never made an attachment (going from home to home) which might explain their psychopathy rather than deprivation as he concluded.
Romanian orphan studies: Institutionalisation (Rutter)
When a child is raised away from a family home (often in an orphanage) with multiple caregivers, often involving some neglect. They adopt behaviour that fit the norm of the institution (disinhibited attachment) and have low IQ.
Disinhibited attachment is clinginess, attention-seeking and indiscriminate affection to strangers. It results from adapting to having multiple caregivers in an institution.
Rutter investigated institutionalisation. 165 Romanian orphans were followed through early life (longitudinal) once they were adopted in Britain. Physical, cognitive and emotional wellbeing was tested at 4,6,11 and 15 years old. A control group was also tested (adopted British children).
At 11, orphans adopted by 6 months had a normal mean IQ of 102, those adopted by 2 years had a low-normal IQ of 86 and those adopted after 2 had a low IQ. Disinhibited attachment was present in those adopted after 6 months.
These findings suggest that there is a sensitive period in the development of attachments (6 months) and failure to form an attachment in this period may have long lasting effects.
There are practical applications of the findings of Rutter’s study. This research has led to important changes in the way that children are cared for in institutions such as few caregivers per child. 1 or 2 key workers who play a central role. This should avoid disinhibited attachments so this is very valuable research.
There are also fewer confounding variables in this research because the orphans were abandoned at birth so we know they haven’t experienced additional abuse or neglect before arriving in the orphanage. This is important because we know they have all similar experiences before being adopted so this raises the internal validity.
However there are issues with generalising the findings from these Romanian studies to institutional care elsewhere. The conditions in the orphanages were so bad with very low standards of care which is unusual. This means that the findings may not be applicable to other orphanages where there is a better standard of care.
Another issue is that the children were not assigned randomly to conditions. Rutter did not interfere with the adoption process so the ones adopted earlier may have been more sociable. However it would have been unethical to intervene because then they would be choosing who gets to have a better life. Researchers should not have this level of contr
The influence of early attachments on later relationships
Bowlby’s internal work model says that we form a template for future relationships based on our monotropic attachment. They type of attachment formed will be reflected in our future relationships (in childhood, romantic relationships in adulthood and as parents). If we have a secure attachment in infancy this should result in healthy adult relationships (long lasting relationships) as well as a continuation of this secure attachment with our own children (this is called the continuity hypothesis).
Smith found that children with secure attachments were not likely to be involved in bullying, those with insecure- resistant attachments were involved with bullying and insecure-avoidant children had been bullied. This is evidence to support Bowlby’s internal working model and its effects in childhood.
Hazan and Shaver analysed the responses to 620 love quizzes printed in a local newspaper. It assessed current relationship, general love experiences and attachment type. 56% of respondents were secure and these ps were most likely to have good long lasting relationships, 25% of respondents were classed as avoidant and they tended to fear intimacy. This seems to support the internal working model into adulthood as children who were avoidant (whose mothers ignored their needs – according to Ainsworth) continue to avoid intimacy in adulthood.
Bailey studied 99 mothers and found that those with poor attachments with their own mothers had 1 year olds who were poorly attached (assessed through the strange situation). This supports the idea that our attachment types continue to form the type of parent we are.
However these studies indicate an association but not a causal relationship between early attachments and later relationships. There could be an alternative explanation for the relationship between these two types of relationship. It could be due to the child/adult’s temperament which would influence both infant attachment and the quality of later relationships. This offers a significant contradiction to Bowlby’s claims about the internal working model.
Zimmerman in fact found very little relationship between infant attachment type and adolescent attachments to parents. This is not what we would expect based on the continuity hypothesis.
Most studies here also rely on retrospective interviews or questionnaires on the adult’s attachment type as an infant. This occurs years later and may not be valid as they would need to have accurate recollections and also be honest and realistic about their own relationships. This may not be the case so the research would therefore lack internal validity.
