Attachment Flashcards
Lorenz - Procedure
Experiment where he divided a clutch of goose eggs
Half were hatched with the mother goose in their natural environment
Other half were hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz
Lorenz - findings + conclusions
The incubator group followed lorenz everywhere
The control group followed their mother
When the two groups were mixed ip the control group continued to follow the mother and the experimental group followed lorenz
This phenomenon is called imprinted where bird species attach and follow the first moving object they see
Lorenz identified a critical period (few hours) in which imprinting takes place - if imprinting does not occur then chicks did not attach themselves to a mother figure
Lorenz - Sexual imprinting
Imprinting = animals form an attachment to the first large moving object that they meet which suggests that. attachment is innate and programmed genetically.
Lorenz observed that birds that imprinted on a human would show courtship towards humans
Case study: A peacock reared in the reptile house which first saw giant tortoises first after being hatched would show courtship towards them which meant he had undergone sexual imprinting
Lorenz - strength
Highly influential within the field of field of developmental psychology:
The fact that attachment formation is under biological control and that attachment formation happens within a specific time frame (as suggested in Lorenz’s study) has led developmental psychologists (such as Bowlby) to develop well recognised theories of attachment suggesting the attachment formation takes place during a critical period and is a biological process. Such theories have been highly influential in the way child care is administered today e.g. maternity leave consists of 52 weeks
Lorenz - generalisability to humans:
The mammalian attachment system is different from that in birds e.g. mammalian mothers show more emotional attachment to young than birds and mammals may be able to form attachments at any time, albeit less easily than in infancy. Therefore, this suggests that such findings have low ecological validity because they cannot be generalised beyond the research setting within which they were found
Guiton et al
found that chickens that imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults (as Lorenz predicted) but with experience eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens which suggests that the impact of mating behaviour is not permanent as Lorenz believed
Harlow - procedure
Harlow tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother
He reared 16 baby monkeys with a wire model ‘mothers’
which dispensed and a cloth-covered ‘mother’
when fightened the monkeys ran to the cloth
Harlow - findings + conclusions
Baby monkeys that cuddled the soft object in preference to the wire one
The monkeys sought comfort from the cloth one when frightened regardless of which dispensed milk
This showed that ‘contact comfort’ was more important to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour
Attachment does not develop as a result of being fed but as a result of contact comfort
Contact Comfort
physical and emotional comfort that an infant receives from being in physical contact with its mother
Maternally deprived monkeys as adults
The monkeys reared with wire moneys were the most dysfunctional but those reared with a soft toy did not develop normal social behaviour
They were more aggressive and less sociable than other monkeys and bred less often (unskilled at mating)
As mothers, the deprived monkeys neglected their young and others attacked their children (even killing them in some cases)
The critical period for normal development for monkeys
Harlow concluded that a mother figure had to be introduced to an infant monkey within for 90 days for an attachment to form
After this time attachment was impossible and the damage done by early deprivation became irreversible
Harlow - practical value
Practical value:
Harlow’s insight has important applications in a range of practical contexts e.g. it has helped social workers (such as Howe) understand risk factors in child neglect/abuse and how to intervene to prevent it
Harlow - Ethical issues
The monkeys suffered greatly facing long term irreversible effects as a form of the experiment. As the species is considered similar to humans, its presumed their suffering was quite human-like however Harlow’s research was sufficiently important to justify the effects
Harlow - Application
Psychologists disagree on the extent to which studies on non-human primates can be generalised to humans. Monkeys are similar in some ways to humans because they are primates but humans have much larger brains and are psychologically more complex. Humans can also make conscious decisions about social interactions to a much greater extent than monkeys. Some are against generalising the findings. Albeit animal studies have tight control over the conditions; in humans we can only study existing cases of deprivation, not create those conditions for an experiment.
Dollard and Miller
Proposed that the caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory. Their approach is sometimes called ‘cupboard love’ approach because it emphasis the importance of the caregiver as the provider of food
Classical conditioning - Learning theory
Food serves as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) which gives us pleasure which is an unconditioned response (UCR)
The caregiver acts as a neutral stimulus (NS)
When the caregiver provides food they become ‘associated’ with the food and the caregiver now becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS) as there is an expectation of food with the caregiver
This association produces the conditioned response (CR) of pleasure at the sight of caregiver
Operant conditioning - Learning theory
1) It can explain why babies cry for comfort as it leads to a response by the caregiver e.g feeding then the baby is likely to repeat the act of crying as it leads to a pleasant consequence therefore the behaviour has been reinforced.
2) This reinforcement is a two-way process the caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops (an unpleasant outcome is stopped) after providing attention to the baby so the caregiver’s behaviour of giving a child attention is reinforced.
This interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment
Learning theory - strength
The only main strength of learning theory is that it does provide an adequate explanation for attachment as we learn through reinforcement and association. However, food may not be the main reinforcement, other ‘rewards’ such as attention and responsiveness may create the bond – which is not accounted for in the learning theory.
Learning theory - counter evidence from animal research
a range of animal studies have shown that young animals do not necessarily attach to (or imprint) on those who feed them. 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 a wire one that dispensed milk. In both studies it is clear that attachment does not form as a result of feeding so it is possible that food does not create the attachment bond.
Learning theory - counter-evidence from human research
research with human infants also shows that feeding does not appear to be an important factor e.g in Shaffer and Emerson’s study many babies developed a primary attachment to their biological mother even though other carers did most of the feeding. This also shows that feeding is not the key element to attachment
Monotropy - Bowlby’s explanation of attachment
Close and important bond with a single primary caregiver - if this monotropic bond did not occur then negative consequences could occur
Social releasers and the critical period - Bowlby’s explanation of attachment
Bowlby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate behaviours like smiling/cooing that grip attention from adults which he refers to as social releasers as they ‘unlock’ the tendency of adults to care for children.
Bowlby proposed that there is a critical period of about two years where the child forms an attachment with the caregiver
Internal working model - Bowlby’s explanation of attachment
A child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary caregiver called an internal working model because it serves as a model for what future relationships are like.
Key features of Bowlby’s theory
ASCMI
1. Adaptive advantage: attachments are adaptive - make us more likely to survive: an infant with an attachment to a caregiver is kept safe, given food, and kept warm.
2. Social releasers: physical/behavioural releasers that ‘unlock’ the innate tendency of adults to care for children
3. Critical period: period of time that a baby has to form an attachment with their caregiver or they will face the consequence of maternal deprivation - cognitive/emotional difficulties such as reduced intelligence and increased aggression
4. Monotropy: One very special intense attachment with the mother or another ever-present adult
Formed through the monotropic attachment and is a mental representation of all future relationships
5. Internal working model: Formed through the monotropic attachment and is a mental representation of all future relationships
Brazleton et al
conducted an experiment where primary attachment figures were instructed to ignore their babies’ signals (their social releasers). The babies showed some distress but when the figures continued to ignore the baby, some responded by curling up and lying motionless. The fact that the responded so strongly so supports Bowlby’s ideas about the significance of infant social behaviour in eliciting caregiving
Strength - Bowlby’s explanation of attachment
Bailey et al
assesed mothers with one-year old babies: using interviews to test the quality of their attachment to their own mothers and then using observations to assess the attachment of these mothers with their own babies. They found that mothers who reported poor attachment to their own parents were classified as poor according to the observations. This supports the idea that an internal working model of attachment was being passed through families
Strength - Bowlby’s explanation of attachment
Monotropy is a socially sensitive idea
It has major implications for the lifestyle choices mothers make when their children are young. Feminists like Burman have pointed out this places a terrible burden of responsibility on mothers setting them to take the blame for anything that goes wrong in the childs life. It also pushes mothers into a particular lifestyle of not working when a child is born. - debate whether this is a limitation because an inconvenience of an idea does not make it wrong but researchers need to be careful promoting ideas that have negative social consequences
Limitation - Bowlby’s explanation of attachment
Mixed evidence for monotropy
Bowlby believed that babies formed one special attachment to their primary caregiver and only after this was formed then the child could form multiple attachments. Schaffer and Emerson found that most babies did attach to one person first but a significant minority were able to form multiple attachments.
Limitation - Bowlby’s explanation of attachment
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ - Procedure
Controlled observation desgined to measure the security of attachment a child displays towards a caregiver
Takes place in a room (labatory) with a two-way mirror
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ - The behaviours used to judge attachment included:
Proximity seeking: an infant with a good attachment will stay fairly close to the caregiver
Response to reunion: response to the caregiver after separation for a short period of time under controlled conditions
Exploration & secure- base behaviour: good attachment enables a child to feel confident to explore using their caregiver as a secure base i.e. point of contact that makes them feel safe
Stranger anxiety
Separation anxiety
(PRESS)
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ - seven episodes:
1) The child is encouraged to explore
2) A stranger comes in and tries to interact with the child
3) The caregiver leaves the child and stranger together
4) The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves
5) The caregiver leaves the child alone
6) The stranger returns
7) The caregiver returns and is reunited with the child
Insecure-avoidant attachment (Type A)
Children explore freely but do not seek proximity or show secure base behaviour
Little to no reaction when their caregiver leaves + little stranger anxiety
Little effort to make contact when the caregiver returns - do not require comfort at the reunion stage
20-25% in the UK
Secure attachment (Type B)
Children explore happily but regularly go back to the caregiver (proximity seeking + secure base behaviour)
Moderate separation distress + stranger anxiety
Children require and accept comfort from the caregiver in the reunion stage
60-75% in the UK
Insecure-resistant attachment (Type C)
Seek greater proximity that others and so explore less
Huge stranger anxiety + separation anxiety
Resist comfort when reunited with their carer
3% in the UK
Kokkinos
Support for validity:
Attachment type is strongly predictive of later development. Babies assessed as secure typically go on to have outcomes - success at school to better friendships/ romantic relationships. Kokkinos found that children with the insecure resistant type (type c) attachment face bullying later childhood and Ward et al found that they face adult mental health problems
Strength - strange situation
Bick et al
Good reliability:
The Strange Siituation shows good inter-rater reliability - two observers watching the same children generally agree on the attachment type to classify them because the experiment takes place under controlled conditions and the behavioural categories are easy to observe. Bick et al found 94% agreement on attachment type between trained Strange Situation observers
Strength - strange situation
What is temperament
Temperament is the child’s genetically influenced personality. Some temperament researcher (e.g. Kagan) suggest some babies are more sociable than others due to their genetic make-up and these temperamental differences infleuces the personality of a child more than behaviour of the caregiver
Temperament as a criticism
Bowlby over-emphasises the importance of a child’s early experiences. This is a limitation because temperament is another credible alternative explanation for attachment and it can explain why some babies show much more stranger anxiety/ separation anxiety than others.
May be a confounding variable in the ‘Strange Situation’ which means the strange situation is not a pure measure of attachment which affects the theory’s internal validity
Main and Soloman
pointed out that a minority of children display atypical attachments that do not fall with types A, B, C behaviour. This atypical attachment is know as disorganised attachment and disorganised children display an odd mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours. Criticism of Ainsworth’s theory of attachment types as she only identified three types
Limitation - strange situation
Takahashi
Cultural differences in childhood mean that children + caregivers respond differently
Takahashi notes the test doesnt work in Japan because mothers are so rarely separated from their babies so there are high levels of separation anxiety and mothers rush to baby and scooped them up in the reunion so the childs response is hard to observe
Test may be culture-bound (doesnt have the same meaning in countries outside Western Europe & USA)
Individualist vs collectivist culture
An individualistic culture is one which emphasises personal independence and achievement at the expense of group goals, resulting in a strong sense of competition
A collectivist culture is one which emphasises family and work goals above individual needs and desires, there is a high degree of interdependence between people
what are cultural variations in attachment
Ways groups of people differ in terms of their social practices, and the effects these practices have on development and behavior.
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg - aim + procedure
Aim: to investigate cross-cultural variation in attachment using information from previous studies.
Procedure: Meta-analysis over the findings of 32 studies of attachment behaviour by examining over 2000 Strange Situation classifications in eight different countries
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg - results + conclusion
Results: Secure attachment – most common classification
Insecure-avoidant – next most common (in individualist cultures) Germany and USA
Insecure-resistant – next most common (in collectivist cultures) Japan and Israel
Conclusion: this study supports the view that attachment is innate and a biological process.
other supporting studies of cultural variations - strange situation conducted in other countries
Italy, Simonella et al
50% were securely attached
36% were insecure-avoidant
Increasing numbers of mothers of very young children use professional childcare so many children are used to being separated from their mothers
Korea, Jin et al
Most infants securely attached
Out of those who insecurely attached: most were resistant and only one classified as insecure
Similar to japan which has a collectivistic culture - Japanese children are very rarely left by their mother so the distress they show when she leaves is probably more due to shock
Conclusion: Cultural upbringing determines the attachment type
Strength - Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study
used large samples - there was a total of nearly 2000 children. Large samples reduce the effect of anomalous results thus the study has high internal validity
Ijzendoorn and Sagi’s analysis
Tokyo – distributions of attachment type were similar to Western ones
Rural areas in Japan – more insecure-resistant individuals
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg research was comparing countries, not cultures - there is more difference in attachment within countries
Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s biased method of assessment:
There is cultural bias into research studying attachment An imposed etic that a lack of separation anxiety and lack of pleasure on reunion is an insecure attachment
High proportion of German children with insecure-avoidant attachment - the lack of separation anxiety and lack of pleasure upon reunion is seen as independence than avoidance (which is expected/desired) and not a sign of insecurity within that cultural context
Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory
The loss of emotional care that is normally provided by a primary caregiver
Being seperated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences
Separation vs Deprivation:
Brief separation is not significant but extended separation can lead to deprivation which causes harm
The critical period:
he first 30 months of life is seen as a critical period for physiological development and if a child was separated from from their mother (or a suitable caregiver) for an extended period during this critical period then psychological damage is inevitable
The effects of separation on development
Intellectual development: Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care would suffer delayed intellectual development characterised by abnormally low IQ - supported by Goldfarb
Emotional development: separation affects children’s emotional development and some children might develop affectionless psychopathy - the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion for others which prevents them from forming normal relationship and associated with criminality because affectionless psychopaths lack remorse
Bowlby – The 44 Juvenile Thieves’ study
aims + procedure
Aim: To investigate the effect of longer term separation
Procedure: A natural experiment where case studies were completed on the backgrounds of 44 adolescents were compared to a control group of 44 adolescents who didn’t steal.
Bowlby – The 44 Juvenile Thieves’ study
results + conclusion
Results: 17/44 of the thieves had experienced frequent separations from their mothers before the age of two. 14/17 of the thieves were diagnosed as ‘affectionless psychopaths’ (they didn’t care about how their actions affected others).
Conclusion: Early separations are linked to affectionless psychopathy and lack of continuous care causes emotional maladjustment or mental disorders
Goldfarb – A deprivation study (supporting evidence of Bowlby)
aims + procedure
Aim: To investigate the effect of long term separation
Procedure: Goldfarb followed 30 orphaned children to age 12. Half of the sample had been fostered by four months of age whilst the other half remained in an orphanage. At 12 their IQ was tested using a standard IQ test called the Stanford-Binet test.
Goldfarb – A deprivation study (supporting evidence of Bowlby)
results + conclusion
Results: The fostered group had an average IQ of 96 whilst the group that remained in the orphanage averaged only 68 (below the cut-off point used to define intellectual disability)
Conclusion: If children are deprived of maternal care they are likely to suffer delayed intellectual development characterised by abnormally low IQ
Bowlby’s maternal theory - methodological issues
The evidence may be poor:
The 44 thieves study had methodological limitations due to the major design flaws most importantly bias as bowlby carried out the assessments for affectionless psychopathology and family interviews knowing what he hoped to find
Bowlby’s orphans: orphaned during WW2, grew up in poor quality orphanages - these experiences of environment could act as a confounding variable
Lewis
who partially replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger looking at 500 young people found that in her sample, a history of early prolonged separation from the mother did not predict criminality or difficulty formed close relationships which suggests other factors may affect the same outcome of early maternal deprivation
Limitation - Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory
Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory - The critical period is more of a sensitive period:
Bowlby used the term ‘critical period’ because he believed prolonged separation inevitably caused damage however later research shows damage is not inevitable as some cases have had good outcomes e.g Koluchova reported the case of twin boys from czechoslovakia isolated from the age of 18 months until they seven years old. Subsequently they were looked after two loving adults and appeared to recover fully - cases like these show the period identified by bowlby is ‘sensitive’ but cannot be critical
Limitation - Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory
Rutter - criticism of bowlby
claimed that when Bowlby talked of ‘deprivation’ he was muddling two concepts - deprivation (the loss of the primary attachment figure after attachment has developed) and privation (the failure to form any attachment in the first place). The long-term damage bowlby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be the result of privation
Limitation - Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory
Rutter’s ERA (English And Romanian Adoptee) study - Procedure
Rutter and colleagues followed a group of 165 romanian orphans adopted in Britain to test what extent good care would make up for poor early experiences in institutions
Physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15
A group of 52 british adopted children served as a control group
Rutter’s ERA (English And Romanian Adoptee) study -
Findings: Disinhibited attachment
Adopted before 6 months
Those adopted before rarely displayed disinhibited attachment
Adopted after 6 months
Those adopted after six months showed signs of a disinhibited attachment - attention seeking/clinginess towards all adults (familar and unfamilar)
Explanation
Adaption to having multiple careers during the sensitive period - in Romania a child might have 50 carers none of whom they see enough to form a seure attachment
Rutter’s ERA (English And Romanian Adoptee) study -
Findings: IQ - cognitive development
Adopted before 6 months
mean IQ at age 11 = 102
Adopted after 6 months and 2 years
mean IQ at age 11 = 86
Adopted after 2 years
mean IQ at age 11 = 77
Explanation/conclusion
Emotional/intellectual development can be recovered provided adoption takes place before the age of 6 months
Real life application - Romanian Adoptee study
Studying Romanian orphans has enhanced our understanding of the effects of the institutionalisation which has led to improvements of how children are cared for in institutions e.g. children’s homes now and ensure that one/two people play a central role for the child called the key workers so children have the chance to develop normal attachments and helps avoid disinhibited attachment. This shows the research has immense value in practical terms
The Romanian orphanages were not typical - Romanian Adoptee study
Conditions were so bad that results cannot be applied to understanding the impact of better quality institutional care or indeed any situation where children experience deprivation. For example the romanian orphans faced particularly poor standards of care e.g in terms of forming relationships with the children. This is a limitation because the unusual situational variables mean the studies lack generalisability
The long-term effects are not clear - Romanian Adoptee study
The studies only followed children’s development up to the age of 15, making it difficult to determine the long or short term effects of institutionalisation and deprivation. There may still be adverse effects for those children (now adults) adopted before the age of six months.
The internal working model
The internal working model acts as a template for future relationships as it is based on a mental repenstation of the child’s first relationship with their primary attachment figure
A child whose first experience is of loving relationship will seek out functional relationships and behave functionally i.e. without being too uninvolved emotionally close (type A - insecure-avoidant) or being controlling/argumentative (type C insecure-resisistant)
Myron-Wilson and Smith
assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using questionnaires in 196 children aged 7-11 from London
Results:
Secure children were very likely to be not involved in bullying
Insecure-avoidant (type A) children were most likely to be victims
Insecure-resistant (type C) children were most likely to be bullies
support for internal working model affecting later rs
Hazen and Shaver
Analysed 620 replis to a ‘love quiz’ printed in an American local newspaper about the relationships formed by respondents
Findings: those reporting secure attachments were the most likely to have good and longer lasting relationships whilst the avoidant respondents tended to reveal jealously + fear of intimacy
Conclusions: findings suggest that patterns of attachment behaviour are reflected in romantic relationships
support for internal working model affecting later rs
Bailey et al
Bailey et al assed the attachments of 99 mothers to their babies (using observvation) and their own mothers (using interviews) and sound the majority of women had the same attachment classification both to their babies and their own mothers
People tend to base their parenting style on their internal working model so attachment type tends to be passed through generation
support for internal working model affecting later rs
Limitations of studies researching the internal working model
Bailey et al’s + Hazen and Shaver use assessments that rely upon self-report techniques - limited social desirability bias, retrospective memory and dependent on respondents being honest and having a realistic view of their own relationships.
Internal working models but self-report is conscious so people are not aware of and cannot report the unconscious influence of their internal working model - validity?
Third environmental factor
The child’s temperament (child’s genetically influenced personality) counter’s Bowlby’s view that the internal working model determines relationships
Clark and Clark
Describe the influence of infant attachment on later relations as probabilistic as people are not doomed to have bad relationships because they had attachment problems, they just have a greater risk of problems. This research may create expectations in individuals and their partners and the health services that children/adults who have experienced early separation/privation are doomed not to recover and such expectations may be self-fulfilling
