Attachment Flashcards
What is developmental psychology
- branch of psychology concerned with progressive behaviour changes that occur in individuals across their lifespan
What is attachment
- emotional bond between two people
- two way process that endures over time
What are ways caregivers and infants interact
- reciprocity
- interactional synchrony
What is reciprocity
- two way mutual process where each party responds to other’s signals to sustain interaction
- behaviour of each party elicits response from the other
Reciprocity in more depth
- studies demonstrated infants coordinate actions with caregiver’s actions in conversation (Jaffe et al. 1973)
- regularity of an infant’s signals allows caregiver to anticipate infant’s behaviour and respond appropriately
- sensitivity to infant behaviour lays foundation for later attachment between caregiver and infant
What is interactional synchrony
- adults and babies respond in time to sustain communication
- caregiver and infant interact in such a way that actions and emotions mirror each other
- research carried out by Meltzoff and Moore (1977)
What did Meltzoff and Moore find about interactional synchrony
- infants as young as 2 weeks old imitated specific facial and hand gestures they saw adults do
- adult model displayed one of three facial expressions or hand movements
- dummy was placed in baby’s mouth during display to prevent response
- after displays, dummy was removed and infant’s expression was filmed
- found there was an association between infant’s behaviour and adult model
What are positive evaluation points of caregiver and infant interactions
- Meltzoff and Moore (1983)
- Murray and Trevarthen (1985)
- Abravanal and DeYong (1991)
What are negative evaluation points of caregiver and infant interactions
- inferences
- expressions
How is Meltzoff and Moore (1983) a positive evaluation point for caregiver and infant interactions
- interactional synchrony has been demonstrated in several studies
- Meltzoff and Moore found infants as young as three days old displaying this behaviour
- suggests that the imitation behaviours are not learned and instead are innate
How is Murray and Trevarthen (1985) a positive evaluation point for caregiver and infant interactions
- got mothers to interact with their babies over a video monitor
- next part of the study, the babies were played a tape of their mothers so she was not responding to them
- babies tried to attract their mother’s attention, but when this failed, they gave up responding
- shows babies want their mothers to reciprocate
How is Abravanal and DeYong (1991) a positive evaluation point for caregiver and infant interactions
- observed infant behaviour when interacting with a puppet that looked like a human mouth opening and closing
- infant’s made little response to this
- shows they are not just imitating what they see; Interactional synchrony is a specific social response
How are inferences a negative evaluation point for caregiver and infant interactions
- babies cannot communicate
- psychologists rely on inferences
- cannot be sure infants are actually trying to communicate
How are expressions a negative evaluation point for caregiver and infant interactions
- expressions tested are ones infants frequently make
- they may not have been deliberately imitating what they saw
How are there difficulties investigating caregiver and infant interactions
- babies’ attachment behaviours stronger in lab, studies should thus take place in natural setting to increase validity
- studies are observational and can have observer bias, counter through interrater reliability
- practical issues => infants often fall asleep or need feeding so observation periods are short
- extra care needed for ethics
Who researched into the stages of attachment
- Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
- investigated development of attachment using longitudinal study
- followed 60 infants and mothers for two years
What are the different stages of attachment
- pre-attachment
- indiscriminate attachment
- discriminate attachment
- multiple attachment
What is the pre-attachment stage
- 0 to 3 months
- from 6 weeks of age, infants become attracted to other humans, preferring them to objects and events
- preference is demonstrated by their smiling at people’s faces
What is the indiscriminate attachment stage
- 3 to 7 months
- infants begin to discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar people
- smiling more at familiar people
- still allow strangers to handle them
What is the discriminate attachment stage
- 7 months onwards
- infants develop specific attachment to primary attachment figure, staying close
- show separation protest and display stranger anxiety
- Schaffer and Emerson found infant’s primary attachment figure was not always person they spent most time with
- concluded it is quality of relationship that matters
What is the multiple attachments stage
- 7 months onwards
- very soon after developing first attachment, infants develop strong emotional ties with other major caregivers
- known as secondary attachments
- fear of strangers weakens but their attachment to their primary attachment figure remains the strongest
What are evaluation points for stages of attachment (all negative)
- reliability
- sample
- temporal validity
- individual differences
How is reliability an evaluation point for stages of attachment
- data collected by Shaffer and Emerson may be unreliable as it was based on mothers’ reports of infants
- some mothers may have been less sensitive to infant’s protects
- therefore been less likely to report them
How is sample an evaluation point for stages of attachment
- sample biased as it only included infants from working class population so findings may not be applicable to other social groups
- sample only includes infants from individualist cultures so findings are not applicable to infants in collectivist cultures
How is temporal validity an evaluation point for stages of attachment
- study lacks temporal validity
- conducted in 1960
- parents care of children has considerably changed since
- many women go out to work and more men stay at home
How are individual differences an evaluation point for stages of attachment
- stage theories are inflexible and do not account for individual differences
- some infants might form multiple attachment first, rather than starting with a single attachment
What is the role of the father in attachment
- inconsistency in research into role of father and whether he plays a distinct role
- some show fathers provide play and stimulation to complement role of mother and both are crucial to child’s wellbeing
- however other research shows no such distinction
- research investigating effects of growing up in a single female or same sex parent family shows no effect on development and suggests role of father is not important
What did Schaffer and Emerson find about the role of the father
- fathers less likely to be primary attachment figure
- may be because less time spent with infant
- men may not be as psychologically equipped to form intense attachment because they lack emotional sensitivity => biological factors => women have oxytocin underlying caring behaviour
- could be due to societal norms
- found 75% of infants studied formed attachment with father at 18 months
What did Field (1978) suggest about the role of the father
- fathers can be primary attachment figures
- role of father in single parent family is more likely to adopt the traditional maternal role, to be the primary caregiver and a nursing attachment figure
What are positive evaluation points for the role of father (2)
- children without fathers often do worse at school and show high levels of risk taking and aggression
=> suggests fathers can help prevent negative developmental outcomes - fathers are important for mothers as well as children
=> fathers who help with childcare allow mothers to have time for themselves, reducing stress, increasing self esteem and enabling mothers to interact positively with their children
What are negative evaluation points for the role of the father (2)
- inconsistency in findings
=> researchers are interested in finding out about different questions
=> some want to see role of father as secondary and some as primary attachment figure
=> difficult to answer what the role actually is - MacCallum and Golombok (2004)
=> found children growing up with only mothers or same sex couples do not develop different to children reared in two parent heterosexual families
=> findings suggest role of father is not important
What was the Strange Situation
- methodology used by Ainsworth et al. (1970)
- investigated differences in attachments between infants and caregivers
- controlled oberservation
- took place in a room that had been furnished with toys
What were the mini episodes observed in the Strange Situation
- mother and baby
- stranger enters
- mother leaves
- mother returns
What did investigators record in the Strange Situation
- proximity seeking
- stranger anxiety
- separation protest
- reunion joy
What were the types of attachment found in the Strange Situation
- insecure avoidant
- secure attachment
- insecure resistant
What is insecure avoidant
- classified in 20% of babies
- babies largely ignore caregiver and explore room
- show no separation protest when caregiver is absent
- continue to ignore caregiver when they return (no reunion joy)
- distressed when complexly alone but comforted by stranger easily showing no stranger anxiety
What is secure attachment
- classified in 70% of babies
- play happily when caregiver is there
- use caregiver as a safe base while they explore
- distressed when caregiver leaves => separation protest
- seeks immediate contact when caregiver returns => reunion joy
- wary of strangers showing stranger anxiety but accepts some comfort
What is insecure resistant
- classified in 10% of babies
- will not explore room as they are clingy
- show extreme separation protest but show no reunion joy
- show extreme stranger anxiety
What is a positive evaluation point for strange situation
- replicated
- has been replicated many times
- easy to replicate
- high control and standardised procedures
- been carried out in many different cultures showing no culture bias
What are negative evaluation points for strange situation
- culture bias
- proximity seeking
- gender bias
- ecological validity
How is culture bias a negative evaluation point for strange situation
- methodology developed in US
- attachment behaviour seen as healthy in US may not be in all cultures
- in Germany, very few mothers worked but children encouraged to be independent and self reliant
- German parents view some behaviour exhibited by securely attached (separation anxiety) as being spoilt
- explains why they showed less separation anxiety and been classed as avoidant
How is proximity seeking a negative evaluation point for strange situation
- validity of some measures has been questioned
- e.g. it could be argued that proximity seeking could be a measure of insecurity rather than security
How is gender bias a negative evaluation point for strange situation
- only been carried out using mothers as caregivers
- children may be insecurely attached to mothers but securely attached to fathers
- therefore not a measuring of a child’s overall attachment style but instead attachment to one individual
- Main and Weston (1981) found children behave differently depending on which parent they are with
How is ecological validity a negative evaluation point for strange situation
- artificial
- may not reflect infant’s real world behaviour
- studies have found that babies’ attachment behaviours are much stronger in lab setting than home environment
Who investigated cross cultural variations in attachment
- Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)
- Ainsworth (1967)
- Simonella (2014)
What were the studies investigated by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) for cross cultural variations in attachment
- all studies included strange situation to measure attachment
- studies looked at relationship between mothers and babies
- babies under 24 months
- studies were conducted in eight countries
- individualistic cultures => USA, UK, Germany
- collectivist cultures => Japan, China, Israel
What were the findings of the meta analysis carried out by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)
- secure attachment most common in all eight countries
- second most common attachment was insecure avoidant, except in Israel and Japan where avoidant was rare but resistant was common
- lowest percentage of secure attachment was in China
- highest percentage of secure attachment was in UK
- highest percentage of insecure avoidant was West Germany
- overall variations within cultures were 1.5 times greater than the variation between cultures
What do the findings of the cross cultural variations in attachment meta analysis suggest
- caregiver and infant interactions have universal characteristics, so may be partly instinctive
- however variations between cultures show cultural differences in child rearing practices play a role
- variations within cultures indicate sub cultural differences, such as social class
- these factors are possibly more important than culture
What was the study carried out by Ainsworth (1967) into cross cultural variations of attachment
- conducted a two year naturalistic observation of mother infant interaction in Uganda
- participants were 26 mothers and infants living in 6 villages
- observed some mothers were more sensitive to infants needs and these mothers tended to have securely attachment infants
- secure attachment led the infant to have increasing competence and independence
What was the study carried out by Simonella (2014) into cross cultural variations of aggression
- study in Italy
- sample of 76 12 month olds using strange situation
- 50% were securely attachment, 36% avoidant
- lower rate of secure than other studies
- researchers argue there is an increase in women in work who use professional childcare
- findings suggest cultural changes can make a dramatic difference to patterns of secure and insecure attachment
What is a positive evaluation point of the meta analysis into cross cultural variations in attachment
- study is a meta analysis
- includes large sample
- increases validity of findings
- findings can be generalised
What are examples of negative evaluation points of the meta analysis in cross cultural variations in attachment
- culture bias
- Israel
- subcultures
- gender bias
How is culture bias a negative evaluation point for the meta analysis into the cross cultural variations in attachment
- strange situation methodology developed in US
- may not be valid in other countries
- e.g. Ainsworth assumed willingness to explore means a child is securely attachment
- not the case in other cultures
- thus methodology culturally biased
How is Israel a negative evaluation point for the meta analysis into the cross cultural variations in attachment
- infants from Israel lived on a Kibbutz (closed community)
- did not come into contact with strangers
- could be the reason for showing severe distress when confronted with strangers and so were classed as resistant
How is subcultures a negative evaluation point for the meta analysis into the cross cultural variations in attachment
- study was not comparing cultures but countries
- e.g. USA and Japan both have different subcultures with different child rearing practices
How is gender bias a negative evaluation point for the meta analysis into the cross cultural variations in attachment
- all studies in meta-analysis looked at infants’ attachments to mothers
- children may have different attachment to both mother and father
- therefore strange situation is not measuring child’s attachment style but attachment to one individual
- Main and Weston (1981) found children behave differently depending on which parent they are with
How does learning theory suggest attachment is learnt
- all behaviour is learned rather than innate or inherited
- people learn through classical and operant conditioning
What is classical conditioning in attachment
- infant born with certain reflexes
- stimulus of food is unconditioned stimulus producing unconditioned response of pleasure
- person providing food is neutral stimulus but become associated with pleasure gained from food over time
- person becomes conditioned stimulus producing conditioned response of pleasure
- according to classical conditioning, this is how attachment bond develops and reason children feel pleasure in caregiver’s presence
What is operant conditioning in attachment
- strengthens attachment
- baby receives positive reinforcement for crying when they are hungry as caregiver feeds them
- caregiver receives negative reinforcement for feeding baby when they cry ad feeding baby makes crying stop
What is a positive evaluation point for learning theory in attachment
- plausible and scientific
- founded in established theory
- likely the association between provision of needs and person providing those needs can lead to strong attachments
What are negative evaluation points for learning theory of attachment
- Harlow (1959)
- Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
- explanation
- environmental
How is Harlow (1959) a negative evaluation point for learning theory of attachment
- separated infant Rhesus monkeys from mothers and put them in cages
- milk was provided either by a wire mesh surrogate mother or one made of cloth
- monkeys clung to soft cloth mother
- especially when scared by aversive stimulus
- even if it did not provide milk
- suggests comfort is more important than food in determining whom a baby will attach to
How is Schaffer and Emerson (1964) a negative evaluation point for learning theory of attachment
- found food is not necessary for attachment to form
- discovered that babies are often attached to people who play with them, rather than feed
- in 39% of cases, even though mother was the one who fed the baby, the baby was more attached to someone else
How is explanation a negative evaluation point for learning theory of attachment
- theory explains how attachments form but not why they form
- according to Bowlby’s theory of attachment, infants form an attachment to their caregiver to ensure they are protected
How is environmental a negative evaluation point for learning theory of attachment
- environmentally reductionist
- explains complex behaviour in overly simplistic way
- infant caregiver relationship is varied, sophisticated and complicated
- many different types of attachment
- therefore unlikely attachment is merely result of caregiver providing food
- environmentally deterministic
- states early learning determines later attachment behaviours
What does Bowlby’s monotropic theory suggest as to why attachments form
- fundamental principle of Bowlby’s theory is that attachment between infants and caregivers is an instinct that has evolved
- increases chance of babies’ survival and parents’ passing genes => adaptive
What does Bowlby’s monotropic theory suggest as to how attachments form
- infants have innate drive to be attached to adult
- Bowlby proposed attachment is determined by caregiver’s sensitivity => strongly attached infants have responsive, cooperative and accessible caregiver
- social releasers ensure attachments develop between caregiver and infant
- argued infants have one special emotional bond => monotropy => biological mother but not always
- infants form secondary attachments providing important emotional safety net vital for healthy psychological and social development
What does Bowlby’s monotropic theory suggest about innate behaviours
- innate behaviours have critical period which they must occur => 2 years of age for attachment
- if infants do not form attachment then they will have difficulty forming later attachments
What does Bowlby’s monotropic theory suggest about social releasers
- important during this time to ensure that attachments develop between caregivers and infants
- include smiling and crying
- behaviours that elicit care giving
- babies display them to encourage caregivers to look after them
What are the consequences of attachment according to Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- infant uses this relationship to form mental view of relationships => internal working model
- secure relationships in childhood ensure a positive working model => current and future relationships will be positive and secure
- continuity hypothesis proposes that individuals who are securely attached in infancy continue to be socially and emotionally competent => secure childhood leads to positive internal working model
What are different laws associated with Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- law of continuity
- law of accumulated separation
What is the law of continuity for Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- the more constant and predictable a child’s care is, the better the quality of their attachment
What is the law of accumulated separation for Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- the effects of every separation from the mother add up
- “the safest dose is zero dose” (Bowlby, 1975)
What are examples of negative evaluation points for Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
- socially sensitive
- Tizard and Hodges (1989)
- unscientific
- Kegan (1984)
How is Schaffer and Emerson (1964) a negative evaluation point for Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- suggested that multiple attachments are more common in babies than monotropy
- found by 18 months, only 13% of infants had only one person they were attached to
How is socially sensitive a negative evaluation point for Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- feminists suggest monotropic theory is socially sensitive
- places burden of responsibility on mothers => take blame if anything goes wrong in child’s life
- also puts pressure on mothers to stay home and give up careers
- Bowlby also underestimated role of father
- saw role of father as primarily economic
- outdated view as many families view both parents equally responsible for childcare and many families have father as primary caregiver
How is Tizard and Hodges (1989) a negative evaluation point for Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- found children who never had any attachments by 4 and were then adopted could still form attachments to new adopted parents
- goes against idea of a critical period before 2 years during which an attachment must form or it never will
How is unscientific a negative evaluation point for Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- impossible to test Bowlby’s argument that attachment has persisted in same form throughout our evolutionary history, making it unscientific
How is Kegan (1984) a negative evaluation point for Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- disagreed with Bowlby about the quality of an infant’s attachment being determined by caregiver’s sensitivity
- explained infant’s attachments to caregivers in terms of innate temperament
- according to his theory, some infants are better suited to form attachments than others due to innate characteristics
- Rovine (1987) found infants who had been judged to have signs of behavioural instability between one and three days were later more likely to have an insecure attachment
What is Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
- children who suffer from prolonged emotional deprivation, caused by absence of primary attachment figure will have long term issues
- intellectual (low IQ), social (delinquency) and emotional difficulties (affectionless psychopathy) and mental health (depression)
- according to continuity hypothesis, effects are irreversible and continue into adulthood due to lack of internal working model => inability to be a good parent
When does maternal deprivation occur
- could occur before critical period => child is 2.5 years old
- risk of occurring up to sensitive period if there is no substitute mother figure available to take over emotional care of child => 5 years old
What was Bowlby’s methodology behind the maternal deprivation theory
- analysed case histories of patients in clinic where he worked
- all children attending clinic were emotionally maladjusted
- studied 88 => 44 thieves (caught stealing) and 44 control
- Bowlby suggested 14 of the thieves were affectionless psychopaths => lacked affection, shame and responsibility for actions
What were Bowlby’s findings behind the maternal deprivation theory
- individuals diagnosed as affectionless psychopaths experienced frequent early separations from mothers
- 12 of 14 affectionless psychopaths experienced frequent separation from mothers compared with only 5 of the 30 thieves who were not classed as affectionless psychopaths
- almost none of control group experienced early separation from mothers
What are positive evaluation points for Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
- practical applications
- Spitz (1945)
- Skodak and Skeeles (1949)
What are negative evaluation points for Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
- Tizard et al. (1989)
- privation
How is practical applications a positive evaluation point for Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
- before Bowlby’s (1953) theory, hospitals would not allow parents to visit children staying
- often had profound and damaging effect on child
- nowadays parents are actively encouraged to stay
How is Spitz (1945) a positive evaluation point for Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
- examined children raised in poor quality orphanage in South America
- staff were overworked, under trained and rarely gave children attention/affection
- children displayed anaclitic depression => loss of appetite, sleeplessness, sadness
How is Skodak and Skeeles (1949) a positive evaluation point for Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
- found children placed in institutions that only looked after them physically scored poorly on intelligence tests
- however when same children transferred to different institution giving emotional care, IQ scores improved by almost 30 points
How is Tizard et al. (1989) a negative evaluation point for Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
- effects of maternal deprivation have been shown to be reversible
- children who had never formed attachments and were adopted after age of 4 were still able to form attachments to new parents
How is privation a negative evaluation point for Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
- Bowlby did not distinguish between deprivation and privation
- deprivation => attachment figure is lost
- privation => child never formed an attachment
- could be privation causing extreme negative effects observed in some studies
What is institutional care
- a child’s living arrangements are outside of the family
- some children are raised in institutions => children’s homes, hostels, hospitals
- children raised in institutions can adopt rules and norms of the institution
- could impair functioning and lead to a loss of personal identity (deindividuation)
Who carried out a study into institutional care
- Rutter et al. (2010)
- studies of Romanian orphans
What was the procedure by Rutter et al. (2010) into institutional care
- involved 165 Romanian children who spent early lives in Romanian orphanages before being adopted
- thus suffered from effects of institutionalisation
- adoptees were tested at regular intervals (ages 4, 6, 11 and 15)
- tested to assess physical, cognitive and social development
- progress compared to control group of 52 British children adopted in UK before age of 6 months
What were the findings by Rutter et al. (2010) into institutional care
- at time of adoption, Romanian orphans lagged behind British counterparts on all measures of physical, cognitive and social development
- by age 4, Romanian children adopted before age of 6 months had caught up to British counterparts
- however a significant number of individuals adopted after age of 6 months still had significant deficits at age 4
What was the conclusion by Rutter et al. (2010) into institutional care
- study suggests that long term consequences of institutionalisation may be less severe than once thought if children are adopted before 6 months and receive sensitive parenting
- however if children are adopted after 6 months, consequences of institutionalisation are likely to be severe
What are the effects of institutionalisation
- delayed intellectual development
- disinhibited attachment
- emotional development
- lack of internal working model
- quasi autism
- delayed physical development
How is delayed intellectual development an effect of institutionalisation
- children raised in institutions can have a low IQ and concentration problems
- means they may struggle at school as they cannot learn new behaviours and concepts as quickly
- can also have delayed language development
How is disinhibited attachment an effect of institutionalisation
- children raised in institutions may not know what appropriate behaviour towards strangers is
- they can be overly affectionate and attention seeking
How is emotional development an effect of institutionalisation
- children raised in institutions can have difficult managing their anger
- e.g. they have more temper tantrums than other children
How is lack of internal working model an effect of institutionalisation
- children raised in institutions may have difficulty interacting with peers and forming close relationships
- as adults they will have impaired adult relationships and can struggle to parents their own children
How is quasi autism an effect of institutionalisation
- children raised in institutions develop quasi autism as they struggle to understand the meaning of social contexts and can have obsessional behaviours
- they can have a lower frequency of pretend play and reduced empathy
How is delayed physical development an effect of institutionalisation
- children in institutional care are usually physically small
- research shows lack of emotional care rather than poor nourishment is the cause of deprivation dwarfism
What are positive evaluation points for the effects of institutionalisation
- practical applications
- studies investigated effects of institutionalisation have enhanced understanding of potential negative consequences of institutional care and led to establishment of key workers in institutions to provide emotional care for children
- additionally, studies led to changes in adoptions process => previously mothers encouraged to nurse children for as long as possible before giving up children but now most babies are adopted within first week of life
What are negative evaluation points for the effects of institutionalisation
- generalisation
- Le Mare and Audet (2006)
- characteristics
How is generalisation a negative evaluation point for the effects of institutionalisation
- problems when generalising findings of studies of Romanian orphans as standard of care was particularly poor in Romanian orphanages
- Romanian orphans faced with much more than emotional deprivation
- physical conditions were appalling, and there was a lack of cognitive stimulation
- likely that long term damage from institutional care only occurs when there are multiple risk factors
How is Le Mare and Audet (2006) a negative evaluation point for the effects of institutionalisation
- possible that negative effects of institutional care can be reduced by sensitive parenting
- Le Mare and Audet conducted longitudinal study of 36 Romanian orphans adopted to families in Canada
- adopted orphans were physically smaller than a matched control group at age 4
- but this difference disappeared by 10
- same was true for physiological health
How is characteristics a negative evaluation point for the effects of institutionalisation
- adoptions and control groups not randomly allocated to conditions in studies of Romanian orphans
- means participants variables between children could influence findingds
- children may have been adopted due to personal characteristics (resilience/sociable)
- may explain why they were less affect by institutional care, lowering validity of research
What did Harlow (1959) do
- conducted landmark study on attachment
- Origins of Love
- sought out to demonstrate mother love (attachment) was not based on the feeding bond between mother and infant as suggested by learning theory
What was the procedure of Harlow (1959)
- created two wire mothers with different heads => one wrapped in soft cloth
- 8 infant rhesus monkeys separated from mothers at birth and studies for 165 days
- placed in cage with two wire mothers
- 4 received milk from cloth mother, 4 from wire
- during 165 days, time spent with each mother measured
- observations made of monkey’s responses to being frightened by mechanical teddy bear, and coping with exploring new room with unfamiliar toys
What were the findings of Harlow (1959)
- all 8 monkeys spent more time with cloth mother even if it was not feeding milk
- monkeys fed by exposed wire mother only stayed long enough to get milk then returned to cloth
- when frightened by mechanical teddy bear, all monkeys clung to cloth mother
- when playing with new objects, monkeys kept one foot on cloth
- when placed in new environment, they were not confident enough to explore room unless cloth mother was with them
What were the long term effects of Harlow (1959)
- Harlow continued to study monkeys as they grew up
- monkeys developed abnormally => froze or fled when approached by other monkeys
- did not show normal mating behaviour and did not cradle their own babies
- if monkeys spent time with other monkeys they could recover but only if this happened before they were 3 months old
- having more than 3 months with only a wire mother was not something they could recover from
What are positive evaluation points for Harlow (1959)
- Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
- found food is not necessary for attachment
- found babies often attachment to people who play with them rather than feed them
- in 39% of cases, even though mother was the one who fed the baby, they baby was more attachment to someone else
What are negative evaluation points for Harlow (1959)
- ethical issues
- extrapolation
- complexity
How are ethical issues a negative evaluation point for Harlow (1959)
- monkeys removed from mothers which could be traumatic
- deliberately scared to see how they reacted
- led to long term emotional harm
- when older and encountered other monkeys, they froze or fled
- had difficulty caring for their own young (did not cradle them) as they had not been cared for themselves
How is extrapolation a negative evaluation point for Harlow (1959)
- problematic to extrapolate findings from this to attachment in human infants
- what applies to non human species does not necessary apply to human infants
- humans are physiologically very different from monkeys
- several influences monkeys do not have
- e.g. culture, society, peers, upbringing
How is complexity a negative evaluation point for Harlow (1959)
- attachment bond between human infants and their attachment figures is far more complex than it is in monkeys
- e.g. there are several different types of attachment styles human infants can have => secure, avoidant, resistant
What did Lorenz (1935) do
- Lorenz was an ethologist => studied animal behaviour in their natural environment
- investigated imprinting => instinct in several species of animals to attach to first moving thing they see after they are born
What was the procedure of Lorenz (1939)
- took a clutch of gosling (geese) eggs
- divided into two groups
- one hatch with natural mother others played in incubate
- eggs in incubator would attach to Lorenz as he was the first moving thing they saw
- Lorenz marked two groups to distinguish between them and placed them all together
What were the findings of Lorenz (1939)
- goslings divided themselves up => followed mother or Lorenz
- those in incubator showed no recognition of mother
- found process of imprinting is restricted to a very definite period of a young animal’s life => critical period
- if young animal not exposed to moving object during critical period then animal will not imprint
- imprinting occurs in first 2 days
- similar to attachment => binds to caregiver in special relationship
- Lorenz had to teach goslings to swim and they would return to him when called
What were the long term effects of Lorenz (1939)
- noted several features of imprinting => irreversible and long lasting
- one geese used to sleep on his bed every night (Martina)
- discovered early imprinting had effect on mate preferences => sexual imprinting
- animals choose to mate with same kind of object upon which they imprinted
What is a positive evaluation point of Lorenz (1935)
- Gutton (1966)
- other studies support idea that animals are born with an instinct to attach to the first moving object they see
- Gutton demonstrated chickens exposed to yellow rubber gloves during feeding in first few weeks of life imprinted on the gloves
What is a negative evaluation point of Lorenz (1935)
- Gutton (1966)
- imprinting is more reversible than Lorenz thought
- Gutton found he could reverse imprinting in chickens that had initially tried to mate with the yellow rubber gloves
- after spending time with their own species, they were able to engage in normal sexual behaviour with other chickens
What did Sroufe et al. (2005) do
- investigated the influence of early attachment on childhood relationships
- Minnesota Parent Child Project
- began in 1975 and is still being studied
What was the procedure for Sroufe et al. (2005)
- since 1975, mothers’ and children’s behaviour has been assessed using questionnaires and observations
- e.g. mothers and children were videotaped (intra observer reliability) while playing for a period of 10-15 minutes at home
- mothers aware of videotaping (social desirability bias)
- two observers analysing recordings (inter observer reliability)
What were the findings for Sroufe et al. (2005)
- children classed as securely attached were
=> rated highest for social competence
=> less socially isolated
=> more popular with peers
=> more empathetic - infant’s early attachment creates internal working model of what relationships are, how partners behave towards each other and expectations of a relationship
- those who are secularly attached have a positive internal working model for relationships => better at forming and maintaining relationships
What were the long term effects for Sroufe et al. (2005)
- if infants do not have an early attachment during critical period, this would result in lack of an internal working model for attachment
- could lead to attachment disorder => no preferred attachment figure and inability to interact/relate to others
- becomes evident from age of 5
- usually caused by severe neglect or frequent change of caregiver
What is a positive evaluation point of Sroufe et al. (2005)
- reliable
- Simpson et al. (2007) found similar results
- assessed infants attachment styles at one year of age
- several studies have found children who were secularly attached as infants were rated as having higher social competence as children and were closer to their friends aged 16
What are negative evaluation points for Sroufe et al. (2005)
- deterministic
- Tizard and Hodges (1989)
How is determinism a negative evaluation point for Sroufe et al. (2005)
- study claims early experiences have a fixed effect on later childhood relationships
- therefore children who are insecurely attached as infants are doomed to experience emotionally unsatisfactory relationships as children
- there ignores role of free will and is deterministic
How is Tizard and Hodges (1989) a negative evaluation point for Sroufe et al. (2005)
- lots of studies contradicting claim that early attachment affects later childhood relationships
- Tizard and Hodges found children raised in care who had never formed any attachments by age of 4 and were then adopted could still form attachments to new adopted parents
What are theories investigating the influence of early attachment on adult relationships
- Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- Hazan and Shaver (1987)
What does Bowlby’s monotropic theory suggest about the influence of early attachment on adult relationships
- infants have on special bond (monotropy)
- infants uses this to form internal working model
- secure relationships ensure positive working model
- so current, future and romantic adult relationships will be positive and secure
- continuity hypothesis proposes individuals who are sexually attached in infancy continue to be socially and emotionally competent => secure childhood leads to positive internal working model
What did Hazan and Shaver (1987) do to investigate the influence of early attachments on adult relationships
- designed a study to test the connection between a person’s infant attachment style, internal working model and adult attachment style
What was the procedure for Hazan and Shaver (1987)
- placed a Love Quiz in the newspaper
- quiz asked question about relationship with parents (identify infant attachment style), attitudes towards love (assess internal working model) and current relationship experiences (determine adult attachment style)
- analysed 620 responses => 205 men and 415 women
What were the findings of Hazan and Shaver (1987)
- when analysing adult attachment style, found prevalence of adult attachment styles was similar to infant attachment styles
- 56% classified secure, 25% avoidant and 19% resistant
- suggests most people’s infant attachment is same as adult
- also found relationship between individual’s internal working model and adult attachment style => positive internal working model tended to be securely attached adults
- found positive correlation between adult attachment and love experiences
- securely attached adult described love experiences as happy/friendly/trusting
- emphasised being able to accept and support partner despite faults
- these relationships were most enduring => ten years on average compared 6 years for avoidant and 5 years for resistant
What are negative evaluation points for Hazan and Shaver (1987)
- reliability
- correlational
- validity
How is reliability a negative evaluation point for Hazan and Shaver (1987)
- study is unreliable
- several other studies failed to find strong correlation between infant attachment style and adult attachment style
- Farley (2002) conducted review of 27 samples where infants were assessed in infancy and later reassessed
- ranging form 1 month to 20 years
- found correlations ranging from 0.5 to 0.1
How is correlational a negative evaluation point for Hazan and Shaver (1987)
- study is correlational rather than experimental
- cannot determine cause and effect
- impossible to say infant attachment styles determine adult attachment styles
- could be the presence of third variable affecting both
- e.g. person’s innate temperament
How is validity a negative evaluation point for Hazan and Shaver (1987)
- study relies on participants’ memories about their early lives in order to assess their infant attachment style
- such recollections are likely to be flawed because memories of the past are not always accurate
- making study invalid
