Attachment Flashcards
Reciprocity and interactional synchrony
Problems with testing infant behaviour- Reason to have some doubt because of difficulties in reliably testing infant behaviour. Infants mouths are fairly constant motion and expressions which tested occur frequently, making it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific limited behaviours. To overcome these problems Meltzoff and Moore measure infant responses by filming infants and then asking an observer to judge infant’s behaviour. Judge had no idea what behaviour was being imitated. Certainly increased internal validity.
Failure to replicate- Other studies have failed to replicate the findings on the facing page, a study by Koepke et al (1983) failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moore’s findings. Meltzoff and Moore counterargued that their research failed as it was less carefully controlled. Marian et al (1996) replicated study by Murray and Trevathern and found infants couldn’t distinguish live from videotaped interactions with their mothers. This suggests infants are actually not responding to the adult. However, this research acknowledged that the problem may lie with the procedure rather than the ability of infants to imitate their caregivers,
Is this behaviour international?– Another method used to test the intentionality of infant observer is to observe how they respond to inanimate objects. Abravanel and DeYong (1991) observed infant behaviour when ‘interacting’ with two objects, one stimulating tongue movements and the other mouth opening/closing. They found infants of median age 5 and 12 weeks made little response to the objects. They concluded that this shows infants don’t just imitate anything they see- it is a specific social response to other humans.
Individual differences- An important feature of interactional synchrony is there are variations between infants. Isabella et al (1989) found more strongly attached infant-caregiver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony. A relationship between closeness of synchrony and strength of attachment. Heimann (1989) showed infants who demonstrate a lot of imitation from birth onwards have been found to have better quality of relationships at three months. However, it is unclear wether imitation is a cause or an effect of early synchrony.
Value of research- forms basis of social behaviour. Meltzoff (2005) developed a ‘like me’ hypothesis, proposing that first there is the connection between what infant sees and their imitation of this. Second, infants associate their own act and own underlying mental states. Third, infants project their own internal experiences onto others performing similar acts. As a result, infants begin to acquire understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling. This understanding relates to theory of mind– understanding mental states of other people, this is fundamental for conducting so-called relationships. Strength of this research is it explains how children begin to understand what others think and feel, and able to conduct relationships.
Development of attachment
Unreliable data- Schaffer and Emerson may be unreliable because it was based on mother’s reports of their infants. Some mothers might have been less sensitive to their infants’ protests and were less likely to report them. This would create a systematic bias which challenges validity of data.
Biased sample- First it was working class population and findings may apply to that social group and not others. Sample also from 1960s. Parental care of children has changed considerably since that time. More women go out to work so many children are cared for outside the home or fathers stay at home and are main carer. Research shows number of dads who chose to stay at home and care for children and family has quadrupled over last 25 years. Likely, if similar study conducted today , findings would be different.
Are multiple attachments equivalent? Bowlby’s view was that an infant forms one special emotional relationship, subsidiary to this are many other secondary attachments which are important as an emotional safety net and other needs, e.g relationships with siblings are important for learning how to negotiate with peers. By contrast, Ritter (1955) argued all attachment figures are equivalent, he believes all attachments are integrated to produce one attachment type.
Cultural variations- Individualist cultures are those which focus on individual e.g Britain and US. Each person in society is first and foremost concerned with their own needs or needs of their immediate family group. In contrast, collectivist cultures are more focused on needs of a group, in such cultures, people share possessions and childcare. In that case, we would expect multiple attachments to be more common. Sagi et all (1994) compared attachments in infants raised in communal environments (Israel kibbutzim) infants raised in family-based sleeping arrangements. Children spend time in a community children’s home cared for this includes night time. Closeness of attachment with mothers was almost twice as common in family based arrangements than communal.
Stage theories- Describe how children’s behaviour changes as they age. One difficulty, suggests development is rather inflexible. It suggests normally single attachments must come before multiple attachments. In some situations and cultures multiple attachments may come first.
Animal studies of attachment
Support for imprinting- Guiton (1966) demonstrated leghorn chicks exposed to yellow rubber gloves for feeding during first few weeks, became imprinted on the gloves. This supports view young animals are not born with predisposition to imprint on a specific type of object but on any moving thing that is present during critical window of development. Also found that male chickens later tried to mate with the gloves, showing early imprinting led to later reproductive behaviour.
Criticisms of imprinting- Now understood that imprinting is more ‘plastic and forgiving mechanism’ (Hoffmann 1966). Guiton (1966) found he could reverse imprinting in chickens who had initially tried to mate with rubber gloves. He found later, after spending time with their own species they were able to engage in normal sexual behaviour with other chickens. Also thought imprinting may not be very different from any other kind of learning.
Confounding variable- One criticism of Harlow’s study is the two stimulus objects varied in more ways than being cloth-covered or not. The two heads were also different, which acted as a confounding variable because it varied systematically with the IV (mother being cloth covered or not). It is possible the reason infant monkeys preferred one mother to the other was because the cloth-covered mother had a more attractive head. Therefore conclusions of study lack internal validity.
Generalisability- Humans differ in important ways- perhaps most importantly because their behaviour is governed by conscious decisions. Nevertheless, a number of studies have found that the observations made of animal attachment are mirrored in human studies. Harlows research is supported by Schaffer and Emerson findings that infants were most attached to the person who fed them. Animal studies can act as useful pointer in understanding human behaviour but we should always seek confirmation by looking at research with humans.
Ethics of Harlow- Could not be done with humans. Study created long lasting emotional harm as monkeys later found it more difficult to form relationships with peers. On the other hand, experiment can be justified in terms of significant effect as has our understanding on process of attachment and research derived from study has been used for better care for humans.
Learning theory of attachment
Based on research with animals- Largely based on studies with nonhuman animals such as Skinner’s research with pigeons. behaviourists believe that humans are actually no different from other animals in terms of how they learn. Our behaviour patterns are constructed from the same basic building blocks of stimulus and response and therefore it is legitimate to generalise from animal studies to human behaviour.
Some aspects of human behaviour can be explained by conditioning but not all behaviour can, Especially a complex behaviour such as attachment. Non- behaviourists argue that attachment involves innate predispositions and mental activity that could be explained in terms of conditioning. Behaviourist explanations may lack validity because they present an oversimplified version of human behaviour.
Contact comfort more important than food- The main limitation of learning theory as an explanation for attachment is that it suggests that food is the key element in the formation of attachment. There is strong evidence to show that feeding has nothing to do with attachment. famously the study conducted by Harlow (1959), Showed that infant rhesus monkeys were most ‘attached’ to the wire mother that provided contact comfort not food. Supported by Shaffer and Emerson.
Learning theory has some explanatory power- Infants do learn through association and reinforcement, But food may not be the main reinforcer. It may be that attention and responsiveness from a caregiver are important rewards that assist in the formation of attachment. Search reinforcers were not part of the learning theory account. It may also be that responsiveness is something the infants imitate and thus learn about how to conduct relationships.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Is attachment adaptive?- Bowlby suggested that attachments develop when the infant is older than three months. This is very late as a mechanism to protect infants. In distant ancestors vital for attachment to form as soon as born. Age of attachment is linked to species’ life. Human infants don’t need to cling on- mothers can carry babies. However, when human infants start crawling attachment is vital and attachment develops in humans, supporting the view it is adaptive.
A sensitive period rather than critical- Psychologists have studied children who failed to form attachments during the import ant critical period. According to Bowlby it should not be possible to form attachments beyond this period. Evidence from Ritter Et Al shows this is true to an extent. It appears Less likely that attachments will form after this period but it is not impossible. For this reason research is now prefer to use the term sensitive period to reflect the fact that the developmental window is one where children are maximally receptive To the formation of certain characteristics or behaviour, But nevertheless such developments can take place outside this window.
Multiple attachments vs monotropy- Secondary attachments in Bowlby’s theory, do contribute to social development But healthy development requires one central person ‘higher’ than all others in a hierarchy. Research on infant-father attachment , for example in Grossman and Grossman (1991). Prior and Glaser (2006) conclude that evidence still points to hierarchy model as suggested by Bowlby’s concept of monotropy.
Continuity hypothesis- According to Bowlby’s theory, one outcome of attachment is the effect it has on subsequent relationships. This has been tested by Minnesota parent-child study ( Sroufe et al 2005). This study followed participants from infancy too late adolescence and found continuity between early attachment and later emotional/ social behaviour. Individuals who were classified as securely attached in infancy were highest rated for social competence later in childhood, Were less isolated and more popular and more empathetic. This supports the continuity hypothesis because there is a link between early and later attachments.
Strange situation
Other types of attachment- Strange situation overlooked a fourth type of attachment. Main and Solomon (1986) analysed over 200 strange situation videotapes and proposed insecure-disorganised type D, which is characterised by a lack of consistent patterns of social behaviour. This leads to a lack of coherent strategy for dealing with stress of separation. They showed very strong attachment behaviour followed by avoidance or fearful towards caregiver.
Observations had high reliability- The measurements are confirmed as meaningful if there is agreement amongst observers- Called inter-observer reliability, Which is determined by comparing the ratings made by a panel of experience judges. Ainsworth et al (1978) Found almost perfect agreement when writing exploratory behaviour- They found .94 agreement between writers .100 would be perfect. This means observations can be accepted as being reliable.
Real-world application- In situations where disordered patterns of attachment develop between infant and caregiver, Intervention strategies can be developed. The circle of security project (Cooper et al 2005) Teachers caregivers to better understand their infants signals of distress and to increase their understanding of what it feels like to feel anxious. The project showed a decrease in the number of caregivers classified as disordered from 60% to 15% and An increase in infants classed as securely attached from 32% to 40%. This supports the research on attachment types because search research can be used to improve children’s lives which is a strength.
Low internal validity- Main and Weston (1981) Found that children behaved differently depending on which parent they were with. This suggests that the classification of an attachment type may not be valid because what we are measuring is one relationship rather a personal characteristic lodged in the individual. However according to Bowlby’s View of monotropy, The fact that an infant responds differently with someone other than their primary attachment figure tells us something about that relationship, But the attachment type is largely related to one special relationship. Main (1999) Tested a group of children and reassed them at age 9 using adult attachment interview, Finding that attachment type seem to be chiefly influenced by the mother, Supporting Bowlby’s concept of monotropy and the internal validity of the strange situation.
Cultural variations in attachment
Similarities may not be innately determined- According to Bowlby’s theory of attachment the reason for universal similarities in how attachment forms is because attachment is an innate mechanism on modified by culture. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg Suggest that at least some cultural similarities might be explained by the effects of mass media (TV and books), Which spread ideas about parenting, as a result, Children all over the world are exposed to similar influences. This means that cultural similarities may not be due to innate biological influences but are because of our increasingly global culture.
Nation rather than culture- Meta-analysis by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg Drew conclusions about cultural differences yet they actually were not comparing cultures but countries. They compare to Japan with the US. Within each country there are many different sub cultures each of which may have different child care practices. Indeed, they found more variation within the cultures than between cultures, Presumably because the data Was collected on different sub cultures within each country. They conclude that ’great caution should be exercised in assuming that an individual sample is representative of a particular culture or even subculture‘
Cross-cultural research- Psychologists measure behaviour using things like intelligence tests or observational methods such as the strange situation. Search tools or techniques are related to the cultural assumptions of the test or technique designer. In the case of the strange situation it is assumed that willingness to explore is a sign of secure attachment. However as we have seen in some cultures this is not the case. In traditional Japanese culture dependence rather than independence would be the sign of secure attachment. The term imposed etic is used to describe the use of a technique designed in one culture but imposed on another. The result of using an imposed etic to measure attachment is that Japanese children may appear to be insecurely attached according to western criteria, Where as they are securely attached by Japanese standards. This means that research using it strange situation may lack validity.
Maternal deprivation
One strength of Bowlby’s ideas is that they 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 children were cared for in hospital.
Ritter (1981) argued Bowlby’s view of deprivation was too simplistic. This is because the term does not take into account wether the child’s attachment bond had formed but been broken, or in fact never formed in the first place. He argued that if 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 attachment and ‘deprivation’ to refer to when one had been lost.
A further evaluation relates to the fact there are individual differences in the reaction to separation. This is supported by Barrett (1997) who reviewed various studies on separation and found that securely attached children sometimes cope reasonably well, whereas insecurely attached become especially distressed. This suggests the effects of maternal deprivation are not experienced in the same way and do no affect children in a uniform way.
Research studies do tend to support the idea that maternal deprivation can have long term effects. Bifulcoet al (1992) studied women who had experienced separation from their mothers at an early age because of maternal death or temporary separation of more than a year. He found that 25% later experienced depression or anxiety, compared to 15% in a control group. The effects were much greater when separation occurred before the child was 6. This supports the idea that maternal deprivation leads to a vulnerability in terms of negative outcomes later in life. It also supports Bowlby’s notion of a critical period.
Effects of institutionalisation
Individual differences- Some research suggests that individuals who do not form a primary attachment within that early sensitive period are unable to recover. However this is not true of all children who experience of institutionalisation. In all of the studies some children are not as strongly affected as others e.g there are individual differences. Ritter Has suggested that it might be that some of the children Did receive special attention in the institution perhaps because they smiled more and this would mean they did have some early attachment experience. Bowlby et al’s study of children hospitalised with TB showed there were individual differences in way children cope.
Real-life application- The outcome of research into institutionalisation is to apply our understanding to improve the lives of children placed in such care. The early research by Bowlby and Robertson on the effects of hospital care changed the way that children were looked after so that much more focus was given when children were hospitalised. The current research with Romanian orphans point specifically to the importance of early adoption. In the past, Mothers who were going to give a baby up for adoption were encouraged to nurse the baby for a significant period of time. By the time the baby was adopted the sensitive period for attachment formation may have passed, Making it difficult to form secure attachments. Today most babies are adopted within the first week of birth and research shows that adoptive mother and children are just as securely attached as non-adopted families (Singer et al 1985)
Value of longitudinal studies- Longitudinal studies take a lot of time which means a lot of planning and waiting for results, but the benefits are large. Without such studies we may mistakenly conclude that there are major affect due to early institutional care, Whereas some of the studies show that the effects may disappear after sufficient time and with suitable high quality care.
Deprivation is only one factor- The Romanian orphans were faced with much more than emotional deprivation. The physical conditions were appalling which impacted their health. The lack of cognitive stimulation would also affect their development. It is likely that damage only occurs when there are multiple risk factors. It is also the case that for many institutionalise children poor care in infancy is followed by poor subsequent care, such as living in poverty, Experiencing parent to disharmony and so on (Turner and Lloyd 1955)
Institutionalisation may just be slow development- One of the findings From the Romanian study was that at the last assessment at age 11 a lower number of children had disinhibited attachment. It may be that the effects of institutionalisation do disappear overtime if children have good quality emotional care. It may be that ex-institutionalise children need more time than normal to the mature sufficiently and learn how to cope with relationships. This is a criticism of the research because it implies that the effects may be irreversible, whereas this may not be true. This is further supported by Le Mare and Audet’s findings that physical underdevelopment had improved by age 11, thus suggesting development does continue in these children, so they simply may not have reached their full potentials in the studies so far.
Influence of early attachment
Research is correlational- The research linking the internal working model with later relationship experiences is correlational rather than experimental, and therefore we can’t claim that the relationship between early attachment and, for example, later love Styles is one cause and effect. In fact it is possible that both attachment style and later love styles are caused by something- Such as innate temperament. And infants temperament affects the way a parent responds and does maybe a determining factor in infant attachment type. The individuals temperament may explain their issues with relationships later in life. In this case temperament is an intervening variable.
Retrospective classification- Most studies (e.g Hazan and Shaver) Rely on retrospective classification- Asking adults questions about that early lives in order to assess infant attachment. Such recollections are likely to be flawed because of our memories of the past are not always accurate, but longitudinals studies also support Hazan and Shavers findings. For example, an ongoing longitudinal study (Simpson et al 2007) assessed infant attachment type at one year of age. Research is also found that participants who were securely attached as infants were rated as having higher social competence as children, closer to their friends at age 16 and one more expressive and were emotionally attached to the romantic partners in early adulthood. This supports the view that attachment type does predict relationships in adult life.
Overly determinist- The research suggests very early experiences have a fixed affect on later adult relationships and, therefore, children who are insecurely attached at one year of age are doomed to experience emotionally unsatisfactory relationships as adults. This is fortunately not the case as researchers have found plenty of instances where participants were experiencing happy adult relationships despite not having been securely attached infants. As Simpson et al (2007) conclude, the research does not suggest that ‘an individuals’ past unalterably determines the future course of his/her relationships.
Low correlations- Not all research has found a strong positive correlation between early attachment and later relationships. Fraley (2002) Conducted a review of 27 samples were infants were assessed in infancy and later re-assessed (ranging from one month to 20 years later). He found correlations ranging from .50 to as low as .10. Such correlations do not suggest that attachment type is very stable, Fraley Suggested that one reason for low correlations maybe because insecure-anxious attachment is more unstable. Such low correlations would pull down overall correlations.
An alternative explanation- Feeney (1999) Argues that adult attachment patterns maybe properties of the relationship rather than the individual. The argument presented is that early relationships cause later attachment types and that is why, for example, securely attached infants go on to have long lasting more positive relationships. An alternative explanation is that adult relationships are guided by a self-verification process-the tendency to seek others who confirm your expectations of relationships. Therefore it is the adult secure relationship that is causing the adult attachment type, rather than vice versa.
