Attachment

Question 1

Outline Attachment

Answer 1

Close two-way emotional bond between 2 individuals - each sees other as essential for own emotional security

Proximity - ppl try to stay physically close to those they’re attached to

Separation distress - ppl distressed when attachment figure leaves their presence

Secure-base behaviour - even when we are independent of our attachment figures, we tend to make regular contact with them e.g. Infants regularly return to attachment figure while playing

Question 2

Outline Bowlby’s monotropic theory

Answer 2

Rejects learning theory - proposes evolutionary explanation that attachment is innate - gives survival advantage
E.g. imprinting + attachment ensures young animals stay close to caregivers + avoid hazards.

Monotropy - child’s attachment to 1 particular caregiver more important than others, called ‘the mother’ but does not have to be bio mum

Law of continuity - more constant + predictable a child’s care = better quality of attachment
Law of accumulated separation - separation time adds up + has negative affect on child, minimum separation is most ideal

Social releasers e.g. cooing/smiling - makes adults care about baby + gets their attention to keep them alive - triggers innate predisposition for attachment.

Critical period - first 2 years where infant attachment system is active. Bowlby later changed to sensitive stage - harder but not impossible to form attachments outside of time frame.

IWM - child forms mental rep of relationships with primary caregiver - acts as model for what future relationships should be like
I.e. 1st experience is loving relationship with reliable caregiver = child expects all relationships to be as such+ will bring these qualities to future relationships.
If 1st experience is negative, there is opposite effect + also influences how child parents themselves too.

Question 3

Evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory (1+)

Answer 3

+
Support for IWM
Bailey et al (2007) - 99 mothers with 1 year babies + tested their quality of attachment with their own mums using standard interview. Also tested baby attachment to their mums by observation
Mums who had poor attachments to their own mums more likely to also have poor attachments to their children
Strongly supports Bowlby’s theory - implies that one’s IWM is passed through families

Question 4

Evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory (2+)

Answer 4

+
Support for social releasers
Brazelton (1975) observed mums + their babies during interactions whilst reporting existence of interactional synchrony. An exp then conducted where the p.a.f. told to ignore social releasers their babies produced
Babies initially showed distress but after time responded by curling up + lying motionless - strong response supports Bowlby’s idea of significance of infant social behaviour in eliciting caregiving.

Question 5

Evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory (3-)

Answer 5

_
Monotropy socially sensitive idea - major implications for lifestyle choices mums make when child is young
E.g. law of accumulated separation - substantial time apart from the p.a.f. risks developing poor quality attachments - will disadvantage child later in life.
Feminist psychologist Erica Burman (1994) - ideology places burden of responsibility on mums setting them up to take blame for everything that goes wrong in child’s life.
Also pushes mums into particular lifestyle e.g. not returning to work.
Not Bowlby’s intention - tried to boost status of mums by emphasising importance of their role.

Question 6

Outline Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

Answer 6

Investigates consequences of separation between child + their mother / mother substitute.
Extended separation leads to deprivation (child loses element of their mother’s care) - causes harm.

Critical period (1st 30 months of life for psych development) – if child deprived of their mums care for extended period of time during this, Bowlby believed psych damage was inevitable, affecting e.g. delayed intellectual development (abnormally low IQ levels.)

Research shows children who remained in institutions had lower IQ levels than those who were fostered so had higher standard of emotional care.

Those that experienced maternal deprivation may develop affectionless psychopathy.
Prevents one from forming normal relationships + commonly associated with criminality - one cant appreciate victim’s feelings + lacks remorse

Question 7

Outline Bowlby’s 44 thieves study

Answer 7

Studied link between maternal deprivation + affectionless psychopathy
Interviewed 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing for affectionless psychopathy signs - lack of guilt for victim
Families of teenagers also interviewed to see if ‘thieves’ had prolonged early separation from mums.
Control group made of non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people - see if maternal deprivation occurred in children who did not become thieves.

14 / 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths + of this 14, 12 experienced prolonged separations from mums in first 2 years of lives.
5 of the remaining 30 thieves had experienced separations + only 2 had in the control group

Question 8

Evaluate Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (1+)

Answer 8

+
Supporting animal research
Harlow’s monkeys grew up with maternal deprivation + when parent themselves some ended up killing their own children.
Shows how maternal deprivation has permanent effect into adulthood of those that have experienced it
Proves Bowlby’s theory to be right increasing our confidence in his findings.

Question 9

Evaluate Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (2-)

Answer 9

_
Counter-evidence from other researchers
Lewis (1954) partially replicated 44 thieves study on larger scale with 500 young people.
In her sample, history of early prolonged separation from person’s mother did not predict criminality / difficulty in forming close relationships.
Contradictory findings from larger sample lower our confidence in Bowlby’s findings - larger sample reduces effects of anomalies on results - may have been present in Bowlby’s original study.

Question 10

Evaluate Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (3-)

Answer 10

_
Critical period may actually be sensitive period
Bowlby believed prolonged separation inevitably caused damage if took place in critical period but later research says otherwise.
E.g. case of twin boys from Czechoslovakia isolated from age of 18 months until they were 7 by stepmother who locked them in cupboard.
After maternal deprivation + traumatic experience, twins looked after by loving adults + appeared to recover fully.
This ‘critical’ period may in fact be a sensitive period as otherwise the twins would have not recovered

Question 11

Outline learning theory as an explanation of attachment

Answer 11

Based on theories from behaviourist approach.

CC: UCS (food) elicits UCR (pleasure). UCS + NS (mother) also produces this pleasure but over time, mother becomes CS to produce the now CR of pleasure as baby expects to be fed + associates pleasure with its mother - has been the same person providing food over time.

Operant conditioning: babies cry - leads to response from caregiver e.g. feeding / comfort. If caregiver gives correct response to baby’s signals, they receive negative reinforcement - crying stops so something bad has been ‘taken away.’ Baby receives positive reinforcement - gain something good (food / attention). Interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment.

Attachment is secondary drive – hunger is primary drive as its an innate bio motivator. Sears et al (1957) - as caregivers provide food, primary drive of fulfilling hunger is generalised to them so attachment is secondary drive learned by an association between caregiver + satisfaction of primary drive.

Question 12

Evaluate the learning theory (1-)

Answer 12

+
Counter-evidence from animal research
Range of studies show young animals do not necessarily imprint on those who feed them
E.g. Lorenz’s geese imprinted onto him before they were fed + maintained attachment regardless of who fed them.
Harlow’s monkeys attached to soft surrogate model mum in preference to wire one that dispensed milk – if learning theory’s true monkeys would have stronger attachment to wire model that fed them + Lorenz’s geese would imprint on whoever gave them food
Not the case so attachment does not develop due to feeding - results must also be true for humans.

Question 13

Evaluate the learning theory (2-)

Answer 13

_
Further counter-evidence from human research
Schaffer + Emerson - many babies developed a primary attachment to their bio mum even though other carers did most of feeding.
So if feeding is not key element to attachment, the UCS / primary hunger drive must not be involved.
Further demotes ideas proposed by learning theory as an explanation of attachment.

Question 14

Evaluate the learning theory (3+)

Answer 14

_
Ignores other factors associated with forming attachments
Research shows quality of attachment is associated with factors e.g. developing reciprocity + good levels of interactional synchrony (Isabella et al 1989)
Also best quality attachments are those with sensitive carers that pick up infant signals + respond accurately to fulfil baby’s needs.
If attachment developed primarily due to feeding, would be no purpose for these complex interactions + we wouldn’t expect to find relationships between them + the quality of infant-caregiver attachment.

Question 15

Outline research into caregiver- infant interactions

Answer 15

Reciprocity - both infant + mum respond to each other’s signals + elicit response from the other.
Interactional synchrony - mum + the infant reflect both actions + emotions of the other in synchronised way

Isabella et al (1989) observed 30 mums + their infants to assess degree of synchrony + quality of attachment
Higher levels of synchrony associated with better quality mother-infant attachment.

Meltzoff + Moore (1977) observed interactional synchronicity in 7 weeks old infants as adults displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions. Child’s response was filmed + identified - association was found between expression made by adult + the actions of baby.

Schaffer + Emerson (1964) also conducted research into parent-infant attachments - majority of babies did become attached to mum first at around 7 months old + within few weeks formed secondary attachments to others, including dad.

75% of infants studies attachment formed with dad by age of 18 months + infants protested when dad walked away - sign of attachment. Research shows quality with mums but not dads related to children’s attachments in adolescence – dad attachment less important.

Quality of dad’s play with infants related to quality of adolescent attachments – suggests that dads have role to do with play + stimulation rather than nurturing.

Question 16

Evaluate research into caregiver- infant interactions (1+)

Answer 16

+
Controlled observations capture fine detail.
Observations of mother-infant interactions are generally well-controlled as filmed from multiple angles.
Fine detail recorded can be analysed later - babies don’t know / care that they’re being observed - behaviour doesn’t change
Strength - findings have good validity + reliable methodology.

Question 17

Evaluate research into caregiver- infant interactions (2-)

Answer 17

_
Hard to know purpose of synchrony + reciprocity
Mere hand-movements + changes in expression make it difficult to know what’s taking place from infant’s perspective
E.g. is this imitation of adults’ signals conscious + deliberate / random?
Also synchrony simply describes behaviours that occur at same time – doesn’t tell us its purpose.
Limited knowledge as to what we can gather from findings.

Question 18

Evaluate research into caregiver- infant interactions (3-)

Answer 18

_
Inconsistent findings on role of fathers
Researchers interested in different questions – some investigating role of father as secondary caregiver, others interested in their potential role as primary caregiver.
Before recent research, most believed fathers behaved differently from mothers + had own distinct role but now many find that father’s can take up maternal role.
Because of opposing finds, psychologists still unable to answer vital question of ‘what is role of the father?’

Question 19

Evaluate research into caregiver- infant interactions (4-)

Answer 19

_
Why are children without fathers not different if they have distinct role?
Research has found fathers to be s.a.f. who had important role in child’s development
But other studies e.g. McCallum + Golombok’s (2004) found children growing up in same-sex / single parent families don’t develop any differently from those in two parent heterosexual families.
So role of father as secondary attachment may not be completely valid

Question 20

Outline research into institutionalisation

Answer 20

Rutter’s Romanian Orphanage study - followed 165 orphans adopted in Britain in longitudinal study
To investigate to what extent good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions
Assessed physical, cognitive + emotional development at ages 4, 6, 11 + 15. Findings compared to a control group of 52 British children adopted at same time

Age 11 children showed differential recovery rates related to age of adoption + how long they spent in institution: adopted before spending 6 months in orphanage = highest mean IQ 102; adopted in 6-24 months = mean IQ 86; adopted after 24 months = lowest IQ 77.
Also developed disinhibited attachments - needed attention from anyone (familiar / complete stranger) - adopted before 6 months rarely showed this.

Question 21

Evaluate research into institutionalisation (1+)

Answer 21

+
Fewer confounding variables than other studies
E.g. those living in institutions often have had very bad experiences beforehand, such as loss of parents / abuse. Possible that these factors have caused negative effects we see children inhibit rather than institution itself.
RO Study is different - most children entered orphanage as babies so no prior experience to such environments - these negative effects must be because of institution.
So study has good internal validity + gives us more confidence that such institutionalisation cause low IQ’s + disinhibited attachments that were seen amongst children.

Question 22

Evaluate research into institutionalisation (2-)

Answer 22

_
Lack of generalisability to other institutions
RO study is fairly unique case - high staff turnover / cramped conditions + low levels of funding - doesn’t reflect experience of all children living in all institutions even if they have suffered deprivation + have been unable to form attachment.
Study did give researchers useful info but we cannot use it to explain general experience of all children in institutions - limits external validity of study + application on wider basis.

Question 23

Evaluate research into institutionalisation (3+)

Answer 23

+
Actually, we can derive real life application from study
There have been improvements in way children are cared for in institutions e.g. Langton (2006) explained that orphanages now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child + instead ensure 1 / 2 people play a central role for each, acting as key workers
Enables children to have chance to develop normal attachments + helps them avoid forming disinhibited attachments overall
Research has been valuable in practical terms.

Question 24

Outline research into the influence of attachment on childhood and adult relationships

Answer 24

Bowlby + IWM: child forms mental rep of first relationship with p.a.f. + acts as template for future relationships.
E.g. first experience is loving = child seeks out functional relationships in future + behave functionally in them without being too uninvolved / too emotionally close (type A behaviour) / being controlling + argumentative (type c behaviour).
Secure attached infants tend to form best quality childhood friendships, insecure attached later have friendship difficulties (Kerns 1994).

Hazan + Shaver (1987) investigated association between attachment + adult relationships. Printed ‘love quiz’ in American newspaper with three sections: 1st assessed reader’s current / most important relationship, 2nd tested general love experiences (e.g. # of partners one has had), 3rd tested attachment types.
620 replies - ppl reporting secure attachments most likely to have long lasting romantic experiences. Avoidant respondents tended to reveal signs of jealousy + fear of intimacy.

IWM also affects child’s ability to parent own children, so attachment types passed on through generations of family. Bailey et al (2007) - considered attachments of 99 mothers + their babies, as well as their relationship with own mother Mother-baby attachments assessed using Strange Situation whilst mother-own-mother attachments were tested using interviews. Majority had same attachment classification both to their babies + their own mothers

Question 25

Evaluate research into the influence of attachment on childhood and adult relationships (1-)

Answer 25

_
Evidence on continuity of attachment types is mixed.
E.g. some studies such McCarthy’s support continuity proposed by lWM but others oppose it
E.g. Zimmerman’s (2000) - assessed infant attachment types + adolescent attachments to parents + results showed little relationship between quality of infant + adolescent attachments.
Mixed findings make it difficult to know for certain whether theories proposed by Bowlby + IWM have validity.

Question 26

Evaluate research into the influence of attachment on childhood and adult relationships (2-)

Answer 26

-
Study definitely has validity issues
Most attachment studies use interviews / questionnaires to gather data years later after infancy - causes validity issues as researcher depends on respondents being honest + have realistic view of their own relationship.
Respondents may give in to social desirability bias + give more positive answer rather than truth.
Issue with retrospective nature of assessment of infant attachment: looking back in adulthood to one’s first relationship with p.a.f. often lacks validity - dependent on accurate recall which can be affected by age / trauma etc.
Poor methodology.

Question 27

Evaluate research into the influence of attachment on childhood and adult relationships (3-)

Answer 27

_
Studies conducted assume association means causality
E.g. where infant attachment type is associated with quality of later relationships, implication is that infant attachment types causes attachment.
But, it’s implied that there may be other explanations for continuity
E.g. temperament may influence both infant attachment + quality of later relationships - acts as confounding variable. Limitation - opposes Bowlby’s theory that IWM is direct cause for these later outcomes.

Question 28

Outline Schaffer’s stages of attachment

Answer 28

Based on their study in 1964 Schaffer + Emerson create 4 Stages of Attachment to explain how + when children formed specific attachments.

1st Asocial stage: some criticised stage for not really being asocial as baby is still recognising + forming bonds with careers. Baby’s behaviour towards non-human objects + humans is similar + show some preference for familiar adults as they find it easier to calm them.

2nd indiscriminate attachment: occurs from 2 -7 months old. Baby displays more social behaviour + prefers ppl rather than inanimate objects. Behaviour classified as indiscriminate as they accept comfort from any adult + don’t usually show separation / stranger anxiety so behaviour is not different towards any one person.

3rd specific attachment: occurs from 7 months onwards. Majority of babies start to show anxiety towards strangers + become anxious when separated from one particular adult - 65% of cases is their bio mother. So baby has formed specific attachment where adult is now the p.a.f. as they respond to baby’s signals with most accuracy.

4th multiple attachments: baby extends this behaviour with others they regularly spend time with - secondary attachments. In Schaffer + Emerson’s study 29% of children had secondary attachments within month of forming primary (specific) attachments + by age of 1 majority had developed multiple attachments.

Question 29

Evaluate Schaffer’s stages of attachment (1-)

Answer 29

_
Problems studying asocial stage
Schaffer + Emerson described first weeks as asocial despite the fact that important interactions take place in those weeks.
Babies have poor co-ordination + are generally immobile so it is difficult to make judgements about them based on observations of behaviour - not much that is observable. Does not mean that child’s feelings + cognitions are not highly social, but the evidence cannot be relied on

Question 30

Evaluate Schaffer’s stages of attachment (2-)

Answer 30

_
Conflicting evidence on multiple attachments
No doubt children become capable of forming multiple attachments at some point but still unclear when. Some research e.g. Bowlby’s (1969) imply most if not all form attachments to single main carer before they’re capable of developing multiple attachments.
Other researchers particularly those who have worked in cultural contexts where multiple caregivers is the norm, think babies form multiple attachments from outset (van Ijzendoorn et al 1993). In collectivist cultures, families work together in everything e.g. producing food + child rearing - difficult to apply these results to other contexts.

Question 31

Evaluate Schaffer’s stages of attachment (3-)

Answer 31

_
Hard to measure these multiple attachments
Just because baby becomes distressed when person leaves room doesn’t make person true attachment figure.
Bowlby (1969) - children have playmates as well as attachment figures. Babies may get distressed when playmate leaves room as well, but this doesn’t signify any attachment so observation doesn’t leave us way to distinguish between behaviour shown towards secondary attachment figures + that shown towards playmates.

Question 32

Outline evaluate the strange situation

Answer 32

Ainsworth: Infants assessed on response to playing in unfamiliar playroom + events that followed.

Child enters room with caregiver + encouraged to explore (test exploration + s.b.b) Those who possess good attachment feel confident to explore room + regularly come back to caregiver + explore again.
2nd stage: stranger comes in + attempts to interact with baby (test s.a.) If baby displays anxiety when stranger approached, suggests that they’re becoming closely attached.
3rd stage: caregiver leaves stranger + child together to further test s.a. + sp.a - another sign of close attachment as baby protests when separated from caregiver.
4th stage: caregiver returns to room + stranger leaves testing baby’s response to reunion. Caregiver leaves again in 5th stage only to be replaced by stranger in 6th stage, until they return again in 7th + are reunited with child. Each episode occurred for 3 minutes.

Distinct pattern in way infants behaved + identified 3 attachment types:
Secure attachment (type B): children explore happily + regularly go back to caregiver (p.s + s.b.b.) + show moderate sp.a. + s.a. Require + accept comfort from caregiver in reunion stage - most desirable attachment type, approx. 60-75% British toddlers classified as it.

Insecure-avoidant attachment (type A): children did explore freely but didn’t show p.s. / s.b.b. Displayed little / no reaction to when caregiver left + made little effort to make contact when returned. Showed little sp.a. + did not require comfort at reunion stage. Approx. 20-25% British toddlers are classified as it.

Insecure-resistant attachment (type C): children seek greater proximity than others so explored less in playroom. Showed huge sp.a. + s.a. but resisted comfort when reunited with carer - most undesirable attachment type with 3% classified as it.

Question 33

Evaluate the strange situation (1+)

Answer 33

+
Support for its validity
Attachment types defined are strongly predictive of later development e.g. babies classified as secure typically go on to have better outcomes in future (success in school / education + romantic relationships / friendships)
Those classified as insecure-resistant associated with worse outcomes e.g. bullying (Kokkinos 2007) + adult mental health problems (Ward et al 2006).
Findings can explain subsequent outcomes - valid

Question 34

Evaluate the strange situation (2-)

Answer 34

_
What does Strange Situation actually measure?
Claims to measure child’s response to anxiety produced by unfamiliar environment, but is main influence of this attachment (Ainsworth) / temperament (Kagan 1982) that genetically influences child’s personality?
Some argue temperament is main + more important influence than attachment - poses problem as temperament acts as confounding variable.
Loses validity - unsure if findings are direct response to attachment types / due to other variables.

Question 35

Evaluate the strange situation (3-)

Answer 35

_
Test may be culture-bound.
Cultural differences in childhood experiences mean kids respond differently to Strange Situation + caregivers may also behave differently - difficult to generalise results gathered from one area of world to another where child-rearing environment may be completely different
E.g. Takahashi (1990) - test doesn’t work in Japan - mothers rarely separated from babies so very high levels of s.a.
When conducted, Japanese mums rushed to babies + scooped them up in reunion stage - child’s response hard to observe.
Suggests study cannot be applied to global audience + when it was tested out results were a bit ambiguous