Attachment

Question 1

What are attachments?

Answer 1

A close, reciprocal, emotional relationship and bond between two people, characterised by mutual affection and the desire to maintain proximity. Each sees the other as essential for their own emotional security.

Question 2

Why do infants form attachments?

Answer 2

Short term benefits:
- children are helpless at birth so need caregivers
- caregivers provide food / protection / safety
- desire for closeness will promote survival
Long term benefits:
- enable us to learn how to behave in relationships
- we learn how to behave in relationships
- we learn how a parent should behave

Question 3

List 3 behaviours that demonstrate attachment

Answer 3

Proximity
Separation distress
Secure-base behaviour

Question 4

What is reciprocity?

Answer 4

Where an infant responds to the action of another person, or where the actions of one partner elicits a response from the other

Question 5

What is interactional synchrony

Answer 5

Where an infant mirrors the actions, for example, an infant imitating behaviours and/or the emotions of caregivers

Question 6

Outline Meltzoff and Moore’s study on infant-caregiver interactions

Answer 6

Aim - to examine caregiver-infant interactions
Method - an adult model would display one of 3 facial expressions or hand movements. The child’s response would be filmed.
Results - there was an association between infant behaviour and the adult model

Question 7

Evaluate infant-caregiver interactions

Answer 7

A limitation of this research is there are problems with testing infant behaviour. Infants’ mouths are in fairly consistent motion and the expressions that are tested occur frequently, which makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and imitated behaviour. This means that we cannot be certain that the behaviours seen in caregiver-infant interactions have a special meaning.

A further limitation is that simply observing a behaviour does not tell us its developmental importance. Feldman points out that ideas like synchrony and reciprocity simply give names to patterns of observable caregiver and baby behaviours. These are robust phenomena in the sense that they can be reliably observed, but they still may not tell us the purpose of these behaviours. This means that we cannot be certain from observational research alone that reciprocity and synchrony are important for a child’s development. However, there is evidence from other lines of research to suggest that early interactions are important. For example, Isabella et al found that achievement of interactional synchrony predicted the development of a good quality attachment. This means that, on balance, caregiver-infant interaction is probably important in development.

A limitation of this study is that other studies have failed to replicate the findings of these studies. A study by Koepke et al failed to replicate these findings. Marian et al replicated a similar study and found infants couldn’t distinguish live from videotaped interactions with their mothers, suggesting the infants are not actually responding to their caregivers. Therefore, the earlier studies’ findings were not replicated in the later studies.

One strength of research on this topic is that caregiver-infant interactions are usually filmed in a lab. This means that other activity, that might distract a baby, can be controlled. Furthermore, filming means that observations can be analysed later, making it unlikely that researchers will miss seeing key behaviours. In addition, having filmed interactions means that more than one observer can record data and establish the inter-rater reliability of observations. Finally, babies don’t know they are being observed, so their behaviour doesn’t change in response to observation. Therefore, the data collected in such research should have good reliability and validity.

Question 8

Outline the role of the father

Answer 8

• Grossman - a longitudinal study. Looked at both parents behaviour and its relationship to the quality of children’s attachment into their teens
• Quality of infant attachments with mothers related to children’s attachment in adolescence but not fathers, suggesting the father is less important
• However, the quality of fathers play in infancy was related to the quality of adolescence attachments
• Suggests fathers have a role to do with play and stimulation rather than nurturing
• In Shaffer and Emerson’s study, fathers were the first joint attachment figure in 35% of infants - fathers are important

Question 9

Outline fathers as primary carers

Answer 9

• When fathers take on the role as primary caregiver, they adopt behaviors more typical of mothers
• Field filmed 4-month old babies in interactions with caregiver mothers, caregiver father, and secondary caregiver fathers.
• Caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smiling, imitating, and holding infants than secondary caregiver fathers
• This behavior is very important in building an attachment with the infant
• The key is the level of responsiveness in the parent, not the gender

Question 10

Why aren’t children without fathers different if fathers have a distinct role?

Answer 10

• Grossman found fathers as secondary attachments have an important role
• However, studies have found children that grow up in same-sex families do not develop any differently from those in heterosexual families, suggestion fathers role as secondary attachment figure is not important

Question 11

Outline research that suggests fathers are important as attachment figures

Answer 11

Shaffer and Emerson’s research showed fathers are important secondary attachment figure. They found that the majority of babies formed secondary attachments to other family members, including fathers, a few weeks or months after the mother. In 75% of infants studied, an attachment was formed with the father by 18 months.

Grossman suggested a fathers role is different, but equally important. The quality of a fathers play wit infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments, suggesting fathers have a different role, that is more to do with play and stimulation and less to do with nurturing.

Field’s research showed that the gender of the person in the primary caregiver role is less important than responsiveness. Primary caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smiling, imitation, and holding infants than secondary caregiver fathers. This shows fathers can be the more nurturing attachment figure. The key to the attachment relationship is the level of responsiveness, not gender.

Question 12

Outline research against the idea that fathers are important in attachment

Answer 12

MacCallum and Golombok highlight that the fathers role must be optional. They found that children growing up in single or same-sex parent families do not develop differently from those in two parent heterosexual families, which suggests the fathers role as secondary attachment figure is not important.

Grossman found differences suggesting he father attachment was less important. The quality of infant attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to children’s attachments in adolescence.

Taylor suggests that father lack the higher levels of oestrogen needed to be truly nurturing caregivers. Female hormones, such as oestrogen, create higher levels of nurturing and therefore women are biologically predisposed to be the primary attachment figure.

Question 13

Evaluate the role of the father

Answer 13

A limitation to research is the inconsistent findings on the role of the father in attachment, which may be due to researchers being interested in different research questions. Some psychologists are interested in understanding the role of fathers as secondary attachment figures whereas others are more concerned with fathers as primary caregivers. This is a limitation as it makes it difficult to offer a simple answer as to the ‘role of the father’. It really depends on what specific role is being discussed.

A limitation of research into the role of fathers is that findings vary according to the methodology used. Longitudinal studies such as that of Grossman et al have suggested that fathers as secondary attachment figures have an important and distinct role in their children’s development, involving play and stimulation. However, if fathers have a distinctive and important role we would expect that children growing up in single-mother and lesbian-parent families would turn out different from those in two-parent heterosexual families. In fact, studies consistently show that these children do not develop differently from children in ‘normal’ families. This means the question as to whether fathers have a distinctive role remains unanswered. However, these lines of research may not be in conflict. It could be that fathers typically take on distinctive roles in 2 parent heterosexual families, but that parents in single-mother and lesbian-parent families simply adapt to accommodate the role played by fathers. This means that the question of a distinctive role for fathers is clear after all. When present, fathers adopt a distinctive role, but families can adapt to not having a father.

A limitation of this research is that it doesn’t explain why fathers don’t generally become primary attachment figures. This could be the result of traditional gender roles in which women are expected to be more caring and nurturing than men, and therefore men don’t feel like they should act like that, or it could be because of female hormones such as oestrogen, which create high levels of nurturing and therefore females are biologically predisposed to be the primary attachment figure.

Question 14

Describe Schaffers 4 stages of attachment

Answer 14

Asocial (0-8 weeks):
- An infant shows similar responses to objects and people, although they do display a preference for faces/eyes

Indiscriminate attachment (2-7 months):
- An infant shows a preference for human company over non-human company
- Have the ability to distinguish between different people, but are comforted indiscriminately

Specific/discriminate attachment (7-12 months):
- An infant shows a preference for one caregiver, displaying separation and stranger anxiety
- Looks to a particular person for security, comfort, and protection
- Uses familiar adults as a safe base

Multiple attachments (1 year onwards):
- Attachment behaviours are displayed towards several different people like siblings, grandparents..

Question 15

Outline Schaffer and Emerson’s study on the formation of early attachments

Answer 15

Aim - to examine the formation of early attachments

Method - 60 babies ( 31 male, 29 female) from working class families in glasgow. Visited the babies in their home every month for the first 12 months, and then again at 18 months. They interviewed the mothers and observed the babies for separation and stranger anxiety.

Results - at 25-32 weeks 50% of the children showed separation anxiety towards their mothers, as expected with the discriminant attachment stage. By 40 weeks 80% of the children had a discriminate attachment and 30% had started to form multiple attachments

Conclusion - the results provide some support for Schaffer’s stages of attachment.

Question 16

Evaluate Schaffer and Emerson’s research on the formation of early attachments

Answer 16

One limitation of Schaffer and Emerson’s stages is the validity of the measures they used to assess attachment in the asocial stage. Young babies have poor coordination and are fairly immobile. If babies less than 2 months old felt anxiety in everyday situations they might have displayed this in quite subtle, hard to observe ways. This made it difficult for mothers to observe and report back to researchers on signs of anxiety and attachment in this age group. This means that babies may actually be quite social but, because of flawed methods, they appear to be asocial.

A limitation of this study is that the sample was biased. Firstly, the sample was from a working class population so the findings may not apply to other social groups. Secondly, the sample was from the 1960s, and parental care has changed a lot since then. Therefore, if a similar study was conducted today, the findings may well be different.

One strength of Schaffer and Emerson’s research is that it has good external validity. Most of the observations were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to the researchers. The alternative would have been to have researchers present to record observations. This might have distracted the babies or made them feel more anxious. This means it is highly likely that the participants behaved naturally while being observed. On the other hand, there are issues with asking the mothers to be the ‘observers’. They were unlikely to be objective observers. They might have been biased in terms of what they noticed when their baby was showing signs of anxiety or they may have misremembered it. This means that even if babies behaved naturally, their behaviour may not have actually been recorded.

Question 17

Outline Lorenz’s research (1935)

Answer 17

Method:
- He took some gosling eggs and divided them into 2 groups
- One group was left with their mother while the other eggs were left in the incubator
- When the eggs hatched the first living thing they saw was Lorenz
- He then put the 2 groups back together

Findings:
- The goslings quickly divided themselves up, one group following their natural mother and the other one following Lorenz
- Lorenz noted that imprinting is restricted to a critical period

Conclusion:
- Imprinting is a form of attachment exhibited mainly in bird species that are mobile from birth
- The first 12-17 hours are the critical period

Question 18

What is imprinting?

Answer 18

An innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the mother which takes place during a specific time in development. If it doesn’t happen in this time it probably won’t happen at all

Question 19

Outline Harlow’s research (1959)

Answer 19

Aim:
- To demonstrate that attachment was not based on the feeding bond between mother and infant

Method:
- Harlow created 2 wire mothers each with a different head. one was wrapped in soft cloth
- He used 16 rhesus baby monkeys
- In one condition milk was dispensed by the plain wire mother and the opposite in the other

Findings:
- The monkeys cuddled the soft mother over the wire one and sought comfort from the cloth one when frightened, regardless of which one dispensed the milk

Conclusions:
- Contact comfort is more important to the monkeys when it came to attachment behaviour

Harlow continued to study his monkeys as they grew up and noted the consequences of their early attachment behaviour:
- more aggressive and less sociable
- bred less often than typical monkeys
- unskilled at mating
- neglected their young
- some attacked or even killed their children

Question 20

Evaluate animal studies of attachment

Answer 20

A strength of Harlow’s research is it can be generalised to humans. Some psychologists argue that humans and monkeys are not all that different. Green states that, on a biological level at least, all mammals have the same brain structure as humans. Therefore, the findings of Harlow’s research may provide some insight into human behaviour, due to the similarity between humans and monkeys. However, it is also argued that it is unlikely that observations of monkeys clinging to cloth mothers reflects the emotional connections and interactions that characterise humans. Therefore, we may be unable to extrapolate the findings from animal studies to humans, limiting the application of Harlow’s research.

A limitation of animal studies is that they are often unethical. It could be argued that animals have a right not to be researched on / harmed and the monkeys raised in Harlow’s experiment all displayed dysfunctional adult behaviour. Therefore, such research is unethical which makes the purpose and integrity of animal research questionable.

A strength of Harlow’s research is that it has important practical applications. Harlow’s research has had profound implications for childcare, especially in social care. Due to the importance of early experiences in long-term development which he discovered, it is vital that children have contact comfort, and their needs are catered for; taking care of just a child’s physical health is not sufficient. Harlow’s research has helped social workers and clinical psychologists understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in child development, allowing them to intervene to prevent poor outcomes. This means that the value of Harlow’s research is not just theoretical but also practical.

Question 21

What is the learning theory of attachment?

Answer 21

Classical conditioning:
In the case of attachment, food serves as an unconditional stimulus. Pleasure is the unconditioned response. The caregiver/feeder is the neutral stimulus. When the same person provides food over a long period of time, they become associated with food, and the caregiver becomes the conditioned stimulus with pleasure being the conditioned response.

Operant conditioning:
Operant conditioning explains why babies cry for comfort, which is an important behaviour in building attachment. Crying leads to a response from the caregiver, for example feeding. Crying is then positively reinforced. This reinforcement is a 2 way process, and the baby stopping crying acts as a negative reinforcer for caregiver. This interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment.

Attachment as a secondary drive:
Learning theory draws on the concept of drive reduction. Hunger is a primary drive, as it is an innate, biological motivator. We are motivated to eat to reduce the hunger drive. Sears et al suggested that, as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them. Attachment is thus a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive.

Question 22

Evaluate the learning theory as an explanation of attachment formation

Answer 22

A limitation of this explanation of attachment is there is contradicting evidence from animal studies. Harlow found that the monkeys in his study tended to cling to the wire mother covered in cloth over the plain wire mother, even when the plain wire mother was the one with the bottle. The monkeys also went to the cloth mothers when scared. This shows that the vital thing in attachment is not food but contact comfort. This goes against the learning theory, which states that babies form attachments for food. Lorenz also had opposing research. Lorenz found that baby geese imprint on the first moving object they see, rather than who feeds them and maintains this attachment regardless of who feeds them. Therefore, this suggests that food isn’t the key factor in the formation of attachment.

A limitation of this explanation is Schaffer and Emerson’s study refutes it. They found that infants became attached to caregivers who spent the most time with them, were the most responsive to them, and nurtured them. This goes against the learning theory that states babies form attachments for food.

A strength of the learning theory is it can explain some aspects of attachment. Infants do learn through association and reinforcement, but food may not be the reinforcer. It may be the attention and responsiveness from a caregiver that are the rewards that assist the formation of attachments. Therefore the learning theory may still be useful in understanding the development of attachments. However, both classical and operant conditioning explanations see the baby playing a relatively passive role in attachment development, simply responding to associations with comfort or reward. In fact, research shows that babies take a very active role in the interactions that produce attachment. This means that conditioning may not be an adequate explanation of ant aspect of attachment.

Question 23

What is Bowlby’s monotropic theory?

Answer 23

Adaptive:
- Attachments are adaptive. Humans have an innate tendency to form attachments with a caregiver
- They give our species an adaptive advantage, making our species more likely to survive

Social releasers:
- Babies have social releases, which unlock the innate tendency in adults to care for them
- Social releases can be physical: baby face features and body proportions, or behavioural: crying, cooing, smiling

Monotropy:
- Bowlby believed that infants form one very special attachment with their mother
- This special attachment is called monotropy
- If the mother isn’t available, the infant could bond with another present mother figure
- The monotropic attachment is qualitatively different from other attachments
The law of continuity -> the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of their attachment
The law of accumulated separation -> the effects of every separation from the mother add up and ‘the safest dose is therefore a zero dose’ (Bowlby)

Critical period:
- Babies have to form the attachment with their caregiver during a critical period, which is between birth and 2.5 years old
- The sensitive period is 6 months
- Bowlby said if this didn’t happen the child would be damaged for life; socially, emotionally, intellectually, and physically

Internal working model:
- Throughout the monotropic attachment, the baby will form an internal working model
- This is a mental schema for relationships
- Your first attachment forms a template for adult relationships
- Most importantly, the internal working model affects the child’s later ability to be a parent themselves
- People tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences

Question 24

Evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic attachment theory

Answer 24

One limitation of Bowlby’s theory is that the concept of monotropy lacks validity. Schaffer and Emerson found that although most babies did attach to one person at first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time. Also, although the first attachment does appear to have a particularly strong influence on later behaviour, this may simply mean it is stronger, not necessarily different in quality from the child’s other attachments. For example, other attachments to family members provide all the same key qualities. This means that Bowlby may be incorrect in suggesting that there is a unique quality and importance to the child’s primary attachment.

Bowlby’s research is socially sensitive. Bowlby’s theory suggests children form one special, important attachment with their mother, and if this bond was not formed or was broken, the child would be severely psychologically damaged. His laws of continuity and accumulated separation suggest that mothers who work may negatively affect their child’s emotional development. Feminists like Durman point out that this belief sets up mothers to take the blame for anything that goes wrong for the child in the future. It also gives people an excuse to restrict mothers’ activities, for example returning to work. However, Bowlby’s theory has had many practical applications that have made life better for babies. For example, the lay of continuity has led to the common use of key workers in social care, ensuring children have some stability with caregivers. Therefor, on balance, although Bowlby’s theory is socially sensitive, this is outweighed by its benefits for babies and society.

A strength of Bowlby’s theory is support for the internal working model. The idea of the internal working model predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed from one generation to the next. Bailey et al assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their 1 year old children. The researcher’s measured the mother’s attachment to their own primary attachment figures. The researchers also assessed the attachment quality of the babies. They found that mothers with poor attachment to their own primary attachment figures were more likely to have poorly attached babies. This supports Bowlby’s idea that mothers’ ability to form attachments to their own babies is influenced by their internal working models. However, there are other important influences on social development. For example, some psychologists believe that genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviour in both babies and adults. These differences could also impact on their parenting ability. This means that Bowlby may have overstated the importance of the internal working model in social behaviour and parenting, at the expense of other factors.

Question 25

What behaviours were measured during the strange situation?

Answer 25

Response to reunion
Stranger anxiety
Separation anxiety
Exploration and safe base behaviour

Question 26

Outline the procedure of the strange situation

Answer 26

1. Baby encouraged to explore -> exploration and safe base
2. A stranger comes in, talks to caregiver, and approaches baby -> stranger anxiety
3. Caregiver leaves the baby and stranger together -> separation and stranger anxiety
4. The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves -> reunion and safe base
5. The caregiver leaves the baby alone -> separation anxiety
6. The stranger returns -> stranger anxiety
7. The caregiver returns and is reunited with the baby -> reunion behaviour

Question 27

What are the 3 different types of attachment?

Answer 27

Type A - insecure avoidant
Type B - secure
Type C - insecure resistant

Question 28

Describe secure attachment

Answer 28

66 %
Harmonious and cooperative interactions with caregiver
Uses mother as safe base
Medium separation anxiety
Medium stranger anxiety
Joy on reunion with attachment figure

Question 29

Describe insecure avoidant attachment

Answer 29

22 %
Tend to avoid social interaction and intimacy with others
Does not use mother as safe base
Low separation anxiety
Low stranger anxiety
No joy on reunion

Question 30

Describe insecure resistant attachment

Answer 30

12 %
Both seek and resist intimacy and social interaction
Does not explore much, stays near mother
High separation anxiety
‘Hot and cold’ stranger anxiety, does not like strangers
Rejects (resists) mother on reunion

Question 31

Evaluate Ainsworth’s strange situation

Answer 31

A limitation of the strange situation is that it was likely to be stressful to the child. You could argue that these children were not adequately protected from psychological harm, and they were deliberately put in this stressful situation. This is an issue because if the children were stressed or distressed they would act differently than when they were calm, meaning Ainsworth’s classifications may not be accurate. Therefore, these results may not be accurate.

A strength of Ainsworth’s research is that attachment type defined by the strange situation is strongly predictive of later development. Babies assessed as secure usually go on to have better outcomes in many areas, from success in school to romantic relationships, whereas insecure resistant attachment is associated with the worst outcomes, including bullying in later childhood and mental health problems. This suggests that the strange situation measures something real and meaningful in a baby’s development. However, not all psychologists believe the strange situation measures attachment. Kagan suggested that genetically-influenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment behaviour in the strange situation and later development. This means that the strange situation may not actually measure attachment.

A strength of the strange situation is it has good inter-rater reliability. Bick et al tested inter-rater reliability for the strange situation for a team of trained observers and found agreement on attachment type in 94% of cases. This high level of reliability may be because the procedure takes place under controlled conditions, and because behaviours involve large movements and are therefore easy to observe. For example, anxious babies cry and crawl away from strangers. This means we can be confident that attachment type as assessed by the strange situation does not depend on subjective measurements.

One limitation of the strange situation is that it may not be a valid measure of attachment in different cultural contexts. The strange situation was developed in Britain and the US, so it may be culture bound. One reason for this is that babies have different experiences in different cultures, and these experiences may affect their responses to the strange situation. For example, in a Japanese study by Takahashi, babies displayed very high levels of separation anxiety, and so a disproportionate number were classified as insecure resistant. Takahashi suggests that this anxiety response was not due to high rates of attachment insecurity, but to the unusual nature of the experience in Japan, where mother-baby separation is very rare. This means that it is very difficult to know what the strange situation is measuring when used outside Europe and the US.

Question 32

What is an individualistic culture?

Answer 32

A culture that emphasises personal independence and achievement (US, UK, Germany)

Question 33

What is a collectivist culture?

Answer 33

A culture that emphasises the importance of family and shared goals above individual needs and desires (China, Japan)

Question 34

What study is used when analysing cultural variations in attachment?

Answer 34

Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg conducted a meta-analysis, which looked at 32 studies in 8 countries, that all used the strange situation

Question 35

What were the findings of the meta-analysis into cultural variations?

Answer 35

Country, no of studies, % secure, % avoidant, % resistant
Uk, 1, 75, 22, 3
USA,18, 65, 21, 14
Holland, 4, 67, 26, 7
Germany, 3, 57, 35, 8
Japan, 2, 68, 5, 27
China, 1, 50, 25, 25
Israel, 2, 64, 7, 29
Sweden, 1, 74, 22, 4

They found that differences within cultures were 1.5 x bigger than the differences between cultures
They sound that secure attachment type was the most common in all cultures. They found that resistant was more common than avoidant in collectivist cultures, and the other way round in individualistic cultures. It is possible that the similarities research has found does not reflect something innate about attachment that is shared by all humans, but the similarities are actually the result of ideas about parenting and childhood being shared by the media and globalisation.

Question 36

Evaluate cultural variations in attachment

Answer 36

A strength of meta-analysis is that the population validity is usually high as the sample size is much greater. This means the results are more likely to be generalisable to a large number of people. Furthermore, individual differences and anomalies are likely to be reduced and minimised in such a large sample, enhancing the validity of the findings.

One limitation of cross-cultural research, including meta-analyses of patterns of attachment types, is the impact of confounding variables on findings. Studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when they are compared in reviews or meta-analyses. Sample characteristics such as poverty, social class, and urban/rural make-up can confound results, as can the age of participants studied in different countries. Environmental variables might also differ between studies and confound results. For example, the size of the room and the availability of interesting toys there, as babies might appear to explore more in studies conducted in small rooms with attractive toys compared to large, bare rooms. Less visible proximity seeking because of room size might make a child more likely to be classified as avoidant. This means that looking at attachment behaviour in different non-matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment.

A limitation of cross-cultural research is in trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context. Imposed etic occurs when we assume an idea or technique that works in one cultural context will work in another. An example of this in attachment research is in the use of babies response to reunion with the caregiver in the strange situation. In Britain and the US, lack of affection on reunion might indicate an avoidant attachment. In Germany, such behaviour would be more likely interpreted as independence rather than insecurity. Therefore, that part of the strange situation may not work in Germany. This means that the behaviours measured by the strange situation may not have had the same meanings in different cultural contexts, and comparing them across cultures is meaningless.

Question 37

What is an imposed etic?

Answer 37

A technique or theory developed in one culture and then used to study the behaviour of people in a different culture with different norms, values, and experiences.

Question 38

What is ethnocentrism?

Answer 38

Judging other cultures by the standards and values of ones own culture. In its extreme form its the belief in the superiority of ones own culture which may lead to prejudice and discrimination towards other cultures.

Question 39

What is deprivation?

Answer 39

Deprivation occurs when the attachment bond is formed but is broken later on in life
“ loved and lost “

Question 40

What is privation?

Answer 40

Privation occurs when a child does not form any attachment at all
“never have or been loved”

Question 41

What is Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis?

Answer 41

If an infant doesn’t develop a warm, intimate, and continuous relationship before 30 months then the child would have difficulty forming relationships with other people and be at a risk of behavioural and or emotional disorders. If a child is separated from their mother, with no substitute care, for an extended period of time during this critical period, psychological damage was inevitable.
Children who are separated typically show 3 key behaviours, in the same order, which are protest, despair, and detachment.

Question 42

In Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis, what did he say the effects on emotional and intellectual development were?

Answer 42

Intellectual development - abnormally low IQ. Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQ in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and thus had a higher standard of emotional care.

Emotional development - children would show signs of affectionless psychopathy, which was characterised by the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions for others. This prevents the person from developing normal relationships and it is associated with criminality. Affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate the feelings of victims and so lack remorse for their actions.

Question 43

What evidence did Bowlby provide for his maternal deprivation theory?

Answer 43

44 thieves study (1944)

Method - 88 children, ages 5 - 16, who were referred to a guidance clinic took part. 44 children were thieves, and Bowlby identified 16 of them as affectionless psychopaths. The other 44 children were a control group. Bowlby interviewed the children and their families to create a record of early life experiences.

Results - 86% of the affectionless psychopaths experienced prolonged attachment separation. Only 17% of the other thieves experienced such separations. Only 4% of the control group had experienced frequent early separations.

Conclusions - these findings suggest there is a link between early separations and later social maladjustment. Maternal deprivation appears to lead to affectionless psychopathy and antisocial behaviour.

Question 44

Evaluate Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory.

Answer 44

One strength of Bowlby’s theory is that it had real-world applications. In the past, children were separated from their parents when they spent time in hospital. Visiting was discouraged or even forbidden. Bowlby’s research led to social change in the way that children were cared for in hospital, leading to children having a higher chance of normal emotional development.

What one limitation of the theory of maternal deprivation is the poor quality of the evidence it is based on. Bowlby’s 44th thieves study is flawed because it was Bowlby who carried out both the family interviews and the assessments for affectionless psychopathy. This left him open to bias, because he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy. Other sources of evidence were equally flawed. For example, Bowlby was also influenced by the confounded findings of Goldfarb’s research on the development of deprived children in wartime orphanages. This study has problems of confounding variables, because the children in Goldfarb’s study had experienced early trauma and institutional care as well as prolonged separation from their primary caregivers. This means that Bowlby’s original source of evidence for maternal deprivation had serious flaws and would not be taken seriously as evidence nowadays. However, the new line of research has provided some modest support for the idea that maternal deprivation can have long-term effects. Levy et al showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development, though not other aspects of development. This means that, although Bowlby relied on flawed evidence to support the theory of maternal deprivation, there are other sources of evidence for his ideas.

A limitation of Bowlby’s theory is that Rutter argued it was too simplistic. This is because the term does not take into account whether the child’s attachment was broken, or if it was never formed at all. Rutter argued that if the latter, the lack of emotional bond would have more serious consequences. As such, he used the term privation to refer to the failure to form an attachment and deprivation for when the attachment was broken.

A limitation of Bowlby’s theory is it doesn’t take into account individual differences. Research has shown that not all children are affected by emotional disruption in the same way. Barret reviewed various studies on separation and found that securely attached children sometimes cope reasonably well, whereas insecurely attached children become especially distressed. This suggests that the effects of maternal deprivation are not experienced in the same way and do not affect children in a uniform way.

Question 45

Evaluate Bowlby’s 44 thieves experiment

Answer 45

A limitation of this experiment is that it was correlational. The results only show us a relationship between early childhood experiences, not the cause. Therefore we are unable to conclude that separation causes affectionless psychopathy.

A limitation of this experiment is there may have been interviewer bias. Interviewer bias is when the expectations of the interviewer affects the respondents behaviour, and seeing as Bowlby interviewed the children and family himself, this may be likely. This means the results may not be valid.

A limitation of this experiment is the results may not be accurate. The participants were required to recall information from a long time ago, which is known as retrospective data collection. Therefore, it is possible that some participants couldn’t remember an the details accurately.

Question 46

What is institutionalisation?

Answer 46

The effect of spending time in an institution, such as a hospital or orphanage, on attachment and social, mental, and physical development, which are sometimes irreversible.

Question 47

Define internal working model

Answer 47

A mental modes of the world which enables individuals to predict and control their environment.

Question 48

Describe the Bucharest early intervention project

Answer 48

Zeanah et al (2005)

• Assessed the attachment in 95 Romanian children aged between 12-31 months who had spent an average of 90% of their life in an institution
• Compared them to a control group who spent their life in a normal “family life”
• Attachment type was assessed using the strange situation
• Carers were asked about unusual social behaviour including clingy, attention-seeking behaviour directed inappropriately at all adults

74% of the control group was securely attached but only 19% of the institutionalised children were
65% of the institution group was classified as disorganised attachment
44% of the institution children had disinhibited attachment, compared to 20% control

Question 49

Describe Rutter’s study on the effects of institutionalisation on Romanian orphans

Answer 49

• Longitudinal study
• Measured the impact of attachment over time for 165 Romanian orphans
• 111 were adopted before age 2
• 54 adopted after 2 but before 4
• A control group of 52 British children adopted by 6 months
• The children were tested for physical, cognitive and emotional development aged 4, 6, 11, and 15
• At the time of adoption the Romanian children were behind the British children in all 3 aspects
• The children adopted quickly caught up with the British children; by 4 most Romanian children adopted before 6 months had caught up, and rarely showed disinhibited attachment
• Many of the children adopted after 6 months had difficulties with peer relationships and showed disinhibited attachment behaviour
• ⅓ of those adopted late had problems requiring the intervention of an educational psychologist or psychiatrist. These problems persisted, all the way to age 15

These findings supported Bowlby’s idea of a critical period, as those who did not form an attachment in this period never seemed to fully recover.

Question 50

Outline the effects of institutionalisation

Answer 50

Disinhibited attachment:
- when the child doesn’t seem to prefer their parents over other people, even strangers
- the child seeks comfort and attention from virtually everyone and is very clingy
Rutter -> disinhibited attachment is an adaptation to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive period for attachment formation. In poor quality institutions, like those in Romania, a child might have 50 carers but doesn’t spend enough time with any of them to be able to form a secure attachment.

Intellectual disability:
- in Rutter’s study, most children showed signs of intellectual disability when they arrived in Britain
- most adopted by 6 months caught up with the control group by 4
- mean IQ of those adopted before 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after age 2
- damage to intellectual development as a result of institutionalisation can be recovered provided adoption takes place before the sensitive period

Question 51

What is disinhibited attachment?

Answer 51

When the child doesn’t seem to prefer their parents over other people, even strangers. The child seeks comfort and attention from virtually everyone and is very clingy

Question 52

Evaluate research on the effects of institutionalisation

Answer 52

A strength of Rutter’s study is it had high ecological validity. Longitudinal studies have high ecological validity and can examine the effects of institutionalisation over a longer period of time. Therefore, the results are more valid. However, participant attrition may have been an issue. In longitudinal studies, some participants may drop out, especially in studies with children, as they may not want to participate anymore when they get old enough to decide. The data from these cases is unavailable but may be highly important. Therefore, this is a limitation as the results may not be accurate.

A strength of the Romanian orphan studies is the lack of confounding variables. There were many orphan studies before the Romanian orphans became available to study, but many of the children studied in orphanages had experienced varying degrees of trauma and it is difficult to disentangle the effects of neglect, physical abuse, and bereavement from those of institutional care. However, the children from Romanian orphanages had, in the main, been handed over by loving parents who could not afford to keep them. This means that results were much less likely to be confounded by other negative early experiences, so had high internal validity. On the other hand, studying children from Romanian orphanages might have induced different confounding variables. The quality of care in these institutions was remarkably poor, with children receiving very little intellectual stimulation or comfort. This means that the harmful effects seen in studies of Romanian orphans may represent the effects of poor institutional care, rather than just institutional care.

A strength of the Romanian orphanage studies is their application to improve conditions for children growing up outside the family home. Studying the Romanian orphans has improved psychologists understanding of the effects of early institutional care, and how to prevent the worst of these affects. This has led to improvements in the conditions experienced by children growing up in the care system. For example, children’s homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child. Instead, the children tend to have one or two key workers who play a central role in their emotional care. Also, institutional care is now seen as an undesirable option for looked after children. Considerable effort is made to accommodate such children in foster care or to have them adopted instead. This means that children in institutional care have a chance to develop normal attachments and disinhibited attachment is avoided.

Question 53

What is the critical time for a child to be adopted?

Answer 53

6 months

Question 54

Outline Hazan and Shaver’s research on the influence of early attachment on adult relationships

Answer 54

• They put a “love quiz” in a local newspaper
• 620 replies
• The quiz assessed current relationships, past relationships, and attachment types
• 56% secure, 25% avoidant, 19% resistant
• Those who were securely attached believed love is enduring, had mutual trust, and were less likely to get divorced
• Those who were insecurely attached felt love was rare, fell in and out of love easily, found relationships harder, and here more likely to be divorced

Question 55

Outline the role of the internal working model on adult relationships

Answer 55

• Bowlby suggested that a baby’s first relationship with their primary attachment figure leads to a mental representation of this relationship
• this internal working model acts as a template for future childhood and adult relationships
• the quality of a baby’s first attachment is crucial because this template will powerfully affect the nature of their future relationships
• a baby whose first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable attachment figure will tend to assume this is how relationships are meant to be
• they will seek out functional relationships and behave functionally within them (without being too uninvolved or emotionally close (avoidant) or controlling and argumentative (resistant))
• a child with bad experiences of their first attachment will bring these bad experiences to bear on later relationships
• they may struggle to form relationships in the first place or they may not behave appropriately within relationships

Question 56

Outline the effects of attachment type on childhood relationships

Answer 56

Secure:
- best quality childhood friendships
- unlikely to be involved in bullying

Resistant:
- friendship difficulties
- most likely to be bullies

Avoidant:
- friendship difficulties
- most likely to be victims of bullying

Question 57

How does infant attachment type affect later relationships?

Answer 57

Secure - positive relationships, trusting, believe in enduring love, positive image of mother as dependable and caring, less likely to be divorced

Resistant - preoccupied by love, fall in and out of love easily but not true love, conflicting memories of mother being positive and rejecting, more likely to be divorced

Avoidant - fearful of closeness, love is not durable or necessary for happiness, remembers mothers as cold and rejecting, more likely to be divorced

Question 58

Outline further research on the effect of early attachment on later relationships

Answer 58

McCarthy:
- Studied 40 women who had been assessed as children for their attachment type
- Secure -> best adult friendships and romantic relationships
- Resistant -> problems maintaining friendships and relationships
- Avoidant -> struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships

Bailey et al:
- Assessed 99 mothers and their infants using the strange situation and interviews
- The majority of the mothers had the same attachment type with their infant as with their own mother

Question 59

Evaluate the influence of early attachment on adult relationships

Answer 59

A limitation studies into attachment types is they have issues of validity. Most studies don’t use the strange situation but interview or questionnaire years later. This leads to problems with participants being honest with their responses, and having a realistic view of their own relationships. This therefore means that this data will lack validity, and not be a completely honest representation of childhood attachments. The measures of early attachment used in most studies may be confounded with other factors, making them meaningless.

One strength of the research into attachment and later relationships is supporting evidence. Reviews of studies linking attachment to later development have concluded that early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional well-being, and attachment to people’s own children. How strong the relationship is between early attachment type and later development depends on both on the attachment type and the aspect of later development. Whilst insecure avoidant attachment seems to convey fairly mild disadvantages for any aspect of development, disorganised attachment is strongly associated with later mental disorder. This means that secure attachment as a baby appears to convey advantages for future development, while disorganised attachment appears to seriously disadvantage children. However, not all evidence supports the existence of close links between early attachment and later development. For example, the Regensburg longitudinal study followed 43 individuals from age one. At age 16, attachment was assessed using the adult attachment interview, and there was no evidence of continuity. This means that it’s not clear to what extent the quality of early attachment really predicts later development. There may be other important factors.

A problem that is highlighted with the influence of early attachment on later relationships is that association between the two doesn’t mean causality. There are other factors that could explain the continuity that exists between infant and later relationships such as parenting style. The child’s temperament may influence attachment type and relationships later in life. This matters because it isn’t clear to what extent the quality of early attachments and our internal working model really predicts later development.

There is research support for the internal working model predicting continuity between the security of an infant’s attachment and the impact on their later relationships. A study by McCarthy supports continuity and so provides evidence to support the internal working model viewpoint. However, there is also research evidence that undermines this idea. Zimmerman found little relationship between infant and adolescent attachment. This is a limitation because it is opposing Bowlby’s view that the internal working model causes these later outcomes.

A limitation of attachment research is that it is deterministic. For example, the research of Hazan and Shaver suggests that very early experiences have a fixed effect on later adult relationships. This is not always the case, as researchers have found plenty of instances where participants were experiencing happy adult relationships, despite not having been securely attached as infants. Therefore, early attachment is not the only factor that affects later relationships.