A-Level Psychology > Attachment > Flashcards
Attachment Flashcards
Attachment
A two-way emotional bond that forms or deve;ops over time, usually between a caregiver and an infant
Reciprocity
When an infant and caregiver respond to each others’ actions which elicits a response and vice versa
Interactional Synchrony
When an infant and caregiver mirror each others’ actions, facial expressions and emotions simultaneously
Validity
The extent to which a test measures what it claims or that the researchers are measuring an observable phenomenon
Reliability
The idea that if an investigation is repeated, the results will be the same (or similar) because the conditions were controlled; the replicablity of an investigation
Ethnocentric
Evaluating the world from a central (usually close-minded) view and assuming it is normal and correct
Longitudinal Study
Carried out over a long period of time, followed up and observed regularly
Snapshot Study
Carried out over a short period of time
Control
The act of keeping conditions the same to ensure the results are fair, reliable and valid; conditions do not affect the investiagtion
Cross-sectional Study
An observational study that collects and analyses data from a population or a representative subset at a single point in time
Seperation Anxiety
The distress infants feel or show when seperated from their attachment figure
Stranger Anxiety
Distress when unfamiliar person approaches, manifested by crying
Imprinting
An innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the mother (or first moving thing) during a specific time in development (the critical period) in precocial animals (e.g birds) immediately after hatching
Critical Period
A biologically determined time period during which attachment or imprinting take place; varies with species
Sexual Imprinting
Where mate preferences are affected by learning at a very goung age usually using parent as model
Generalisability
The application of the results from a study to a wider target population
Contact Comfort
The physical and emotional comfort an infant received from being in physical comfort with caregivers
Classical Conditioning
When infants associate two actions e.g the mother with the comfort of being fed until they find the mother comforting
Operant Conditioning
When infants discover that certain behaviours elicis or evokes desirable responses from others, hence they repeat these behaviour to get what they want; learning by reinforcement
Positive Reinforcement
The process of rewarding/reinforcing desirable behaviour to increase the likelihood that it will be repeated in the future
Negative Reinforcement
The removal of something unpleasant or comfortable to increase the likelihood of desired behaviour
Primary Reinforcer
Satisfies innate desires e.g food satisfies hunger
Secondary Reinforcer
Associated with the primary reinforcer, usually attachment figure
Unconditioned Stimulus
Innate desire that is usually an event that affects the senses
Unconditioned Response
The result or product when an infant is given an unconditioned stimulus
Neutral Stimulus
Produces no response initially
Conditioned Stimulus
The neutral stimulus after being consistently associated with the unconditioned stimulus and now evoked a conditioned response
Social releasers
Behaviours that infants are biologically programmed to do to evoke a nurturing response e.g crying or giggling
Monotropy
Indicated a particular attachment that is different from all others and of central importance to the child’s development
Internal Working Model
A mental representation we all carry with us of our attachment to our primary caregiver which affects our future relationships as they carry our perception of what a relationship should look like
The Law of Continuity
States that the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better quality of attachment
The Law of Accumulated Seperation
States that having substantial time apart from a PCG risks a poor quality attachment that will disadvantage the child in a range of ways
The Continuity Hypothesis
Suggests a link between early attachments and later relationships with poorly attached children then having more difficulty in adulthood and childhood while securely attached children from more stable relationships
Strange Situation
A procedure for assessing the quality of attachment between an infant and PCG
Proximity Seeking
Staying fairly close to the PCG for comfort
Secure Base Behaviour
Having the confidence to explore due to the presence OF PCG making them feel safe
Reunion Behaviours
Great joys and comfort seeking on return of PCG
Inter-rater Reliablity
The extent to which a repeated studies’ results are consistent over time
Test-retest Reliability
The extent to which the results of a repeated study remains consistent over time
Secure Attachment (Type B)
Classified by children who show moderate seperation and stranger anxiety and are easily comforted on PCG’s return
Insecure-Avoidant Attachment (Type A)
Classified by children who show low seperation and stranger anxiety and indifference on PCG’s return
Insecure-Resistant Attachment (Type C)
Classified by children who show high seperation and stranger anxiety and are not easily comforted on PCG’s return
Insecure-Disorganised Attachment (Type D)
Classified by children who show a mix of Type A and B attachment
Culture Bound
Valid within a particular culture
Meta analysis
A statistical analysis which combined secondary data of multiple scientific studies to reach one conclusion
Maternal Deprivation
Extended deprivation of an infant from their PCG in the absence of substitute care which leads to deprivation of emotional care and irreversible damage
Maternal Seperation
Brief absence of PCG from infant in the presence of substitute care
Affectionless Psychopathy
Inability to experience guilt or strong emotions towards others
Privation
No attachment has ever had the opportunity to form
Confounding Variable
A type of extraneous variable that systematically affects one condition of the IV
Institution
A place where people live for a long time, often run by an official body such as the government
Institutionalisation
(The effect of) living together in an institution for a long time
Disinhibited Attachment
Classified by children who show no preference to parents over others, including strangers and seek comfort and attention from virtually anyone
Intellectual Disability/Mental Retardation
When the cognitive ability is below average; very delayed intellectual development
Social Suppressors
Behaviour that prevents undesirable behaviour
Three ways that an attachment can be recognised
Proximity seeking (waiting to be near the attachment figure)
Secure base behaviour (when the infant feels confident to explore when the attachment figure is near, using them as a secure base)
Separation anxiety (showing distress when the attachment figure is absent).
What did Brazelton find?
Brazelton (1975) describes reciprocity as a dance because as the leader completes the action, the partner responds.
Who investigated interactional synchrony?
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) investigated this interaction in the first systematic study by having an adult model display one of three facial expressions or hand movements. They found that when the dummy was removed from the newborn’s mouth that some of the facial expressions were mimicked
Who observed the degree of synchrony?
Isabella et al (1989) then observed and assessed the degree of synchrony between 30 mothers and their infants. They found higher levels of attachments were associated with better quality attachments later in life which suggests that interactional synchrony might form or lead to stronger attachments.
Evaluate Caregiver-infant interactions
-Controlled observations are controlled and filmed from multiple angled so they can be analysed and babies don’t care they are being observed so high internal validity and reliabilty
-Observations don’t show purpose, Feldman states that they describe behaviour that happen every time but only speculations can be made so further research is needed
-Not found in all cultures; Le Vine et al found that Kenyan mothers have little interactions but still have secure attachments. Research ethnocentric and most research is based on western attachment. Cannot be generalised
What three researchers investigated the role of the father and what did they find?
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) concluded that mothers are much more likely to be made primary attachment figures while fathers are more likely to become secondary attachment figures because he found that majority of babies attached to the mother first (after 7 months) and within a few weeks or months, secondary attachments were formed, including those with fathers. In 75% of the infant studies, an attachment was formed with the father at the age of 18 months, determined by the fact that the infants protested when their father walked away.
Grossman (2002) found out after conducting a longitudinal study, with children of ages 6, 10 and 16, that when children are distressed, father gives the babies to mother. Hence, it was concluded that mothers are the predicators of attachments at later ages while the role of the father was one to do with play and stimulation not nurturing. The quality of father’s play made an impact on the quality of adolescent attachments.
However, there is some evidence to suggest that when fathers do take on the role of being the main caregiver they adopt behaviours more typical of mothers. Field (1987) found after filming 4-month olds in face-to-face interactions with their primary and secondary caregivers they found that the primary caregivers engaged more by smiling and imitating the infant. Therefore, they concluded that the key to who the primary caregiver was didn’t depend on the gender but on sensitive responsiveness (how accurate and quick the caregivers were to respond to the infant’s interactions)
Evaluate the role of the father
-Contradictory finding because some are interested in one role and others are interested in another so conclusions are contradictory which is a weakness as the role is unclear and further research is required
-Speculations that fathers don’t have a role cos Grossman said he’s important but MacCallum and Golombok don’t notice a different in single parent and same-sex families, falsifying the other hypotheses
-Father dont become the primary caregiver ether due to gender roles so they don’t have to or female hormones (oestrogen) which make women predisposed to be primary caregiver, weakness because further research is needed to fully explain the role of the father
Who investigated the formation of early attachments and how dit they do it?
Schaffer and Emerson conducted a longitudinal study on 60 Glasgow infants from working-class homes at monthly intervals for the first 18 months of their lives to investigate the formation of early attachments.
The infants were studied in their own home and a regular pattern was identified in the development of attachment. The babies were visited monthly for approximately a year and their interactions with their carers were observed and carers were interviewed. The mothers were asked to keep a diary of the infant’s response to separation in different everyday situations such as being left alone in a room and being put down after being held by an adult.
The researchers also directly observed the babies’ reactions when they approached them to test stranger anxiety and they were followed up again at 18 months
Stages of attachment
Asocial attachment: from birth to 2 months where the newborn shows similar response to animate and inanimate objects, but will show a preference for people at the end of this stage using interactional synchrony and reciprocity to form relationships.
Indiscriminate attachments: 2-7 months where the child shows a marked preference for familiar people rather than inanimate objects yet will accept comfort from anyone so show no stranger or separation anxiety.
Specific attachments: from around 7 months when the infants start to show stranger or separation anxiety when a specific adult is absent—this adult is called the primary attachment figure.
Multiple attachments: between 10 and 12 months; the infant displays attachment behavior towards other people with whom they are familiar-these are called secondary attachments.
What was also concluded from the stages of attachment study?
They also concluded that the mother was the main attachment figure at 7 months (65% of mothers compared to 3% of fathers). They found that this was due to sensitive responsiveness, those who responded quickly and accurately to the baby’s signals, rather than who they spend most time with.
Evaluation the formation of early attachments
-Issues with the Asocial stage, babies have poor coordination which makes judgement of observations difficult and possibly invalid
-Conflicting evidence of multiple attachments; Bowlby supported this but Ijzendoorn et al found that in collectivist cultures were families work together for child rearing that multiple was formed first so could be ethnocentric and an imposed etic
-Issues with measuring multiple attachments; infants distressed when parents leave room but Bowlby found the same when playmate leaves room so not necessary attachment, flaws with operationalisation which reduced internal validity
What Lorenz find in his study?
Lorenz (1935) conducted an observation where he randomly allocated a clutch of eggs into two groups where one was left to hatch with the mother and the other was hatched in an incubator, and the first moving thing they saw was Lorennz. The experimental group followed Lorenz around while the control group followed around the mother group. Even when they were both let out together in an upturned box (the experimental group was marked), each gosling went to its ‘mother figure’; Lorenz’s goslings show no recognition of their mother.
As a result, imprinting was described as an evolutionary feature of attachment. It is an innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the mother/the first thing that they see during a specific time in development which varies with species (critical period) immediately after hatching.
Lorenz, in other experiments, also got ducklings and goslings to imprint on inanimate objects such as boots.
He concluded that sexual imprinting also occurred in some cases where mating preferences are adapted as the primary attachment figure is used as a model, e.g a peacock showed direct courtship behavior towards tortoises after imprinting on one (Lorenz 1952).
What did Harlow find in his animal study?
Harlow (1958) also conducted an animal study to investigate the importance of contact comfort. He separated 16 rhesus monkeys from their mothers immediately after birth and placed them in cages with two surrogate mothers, one made of wire and the other covered in soft furry toweling cloth. Eight of the monkeys could get milk from the cloth mother while the other eight had to get it from the wire mother. The animals were studied for various lengths of time.
Harlow found that the infants of the second group would only go to the wire mother when they were hungry and both groups would spend more time with the cloth mother. They would take comfort in the cloth mother if a frightening object was placed in the cage and would explore more when the cloth mother was present.
Overall, Harlow also found that the monkeys that they grown up with the surrogate mothers were more timid, didn’t know how to behave with the other monkeys and could be aggressive, had difficulties with mating and the females were often inadequate mothers and killed off their offspring.
He discovered that the critical period of the rhesus monkeys was 90 days and the effects could be reversed if they were placed in a normal environment where they could form attachments before the 90 days ended.
Hence, Harlow concluded that contact comfort was more important than food in the formation of attachment but not sufficient for healthy development although it was preferable. Furthermore, early maternal deprivation could lead to irreversible emotional damage if an attachment was not formed by the end of the critical period and no amount of exposure to peers or mothers can alter this.
Evaluate animal studies
-Issue with generalisability of Lorenz who used precocial to explain altricial behaviour; mammalian attachment is more complex than birds so is inappropriate to generalise to humans.
-Lorenz observations about permanent effect of imprinting on mating behavior has been questioned; Guitton found that chicken who imprinted on washing up gloves wanted to mate with other chickens so sexual imprinting only happened with certain species, weakness as it contradicts Lorenz
-Harlow can be applied to real life; early maternal deprivation and contact comfort helps others to understand the risk factors in neglect and abuse with human children and prevent poor outcomes; also in zoobreeding programmes; improves quality of life
How do Dollard and Miller proposed children make attachments?
Dollard and Miller (1950) proposed the learning theory as an explanation of attachment with the assumption that children learn to become attached to their caregiver because they give them food. This is sometimes referred to as ‘cupboard love’.
Explain the two types of conditioning
Classical conditioning or learning by association; where food is the ucs which producing pleasure, the ucr, and the mother is the ns, but she later becomes the Cs which produces pleasure the cr
Operant conditioning using positive or negative reinforcement e.g when the primary caregiver attempts to stop a baby from crying (social suppressor) by feeding them
Who suggested the drive theory?
Sears et al (1957) also suggested the drive theory where a hungry infant feels uncomfortable and is driven to reduce discomfort. Food is the primary reinforcer as it directly satisfies hunger while the primary caregiver is the secondary reinforcer as they are associated with the primary reinforcer. Therefore, attachment occurs because the child seeks the person who can supply the food.
Evaluate the learning theory of attachment
Evidence from human studies counters the learning theory as an explanation for attachment.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that infants attach to those who provide the most skilled response to the infant, known as sensitive responsiveness.
This suggests that attachment was formed without an unconditioned stimulus (food) becoming unconditioned with a primary caregiver or any learning involved reinforcement.
This is a weakness as it suggests that the learning theory of attachment is accurate as it does not explain attachment.
Evidence from animal studies also counters the theory.
Harlow found that monkeys attached to the cloth mother despite not being fed. He concluded that ‘contact comfort’ was an essential part of attachment formation and this is entirely ignored by the ‘cupboard love’ theory.
Additionally, Lorenz found that goslings imprinted immediately after hatching, suggesting attachment is a biological drive.
There are speculations as to whether or not these pieces of evidence should be compared to the theory as human attachments are much more complex.
This is a weakness as it suggests that attachment was formed without any feeding contradicting the theory.
The Learning Theory ignores other factors linked to attachment.
Isabella et al (1989) found that interactional synchrony and reciprocity are highly linked to attachment quality.
The correlation between these complex behaviors and attachment suggests that attachment cannot be based alone on food and that it is more complex that just ‘cupboard love’. It also suggests that the infants may play an active role in attachment formation as opposed to being passively shaped by environmental stimuli.
This is a weakness as it suggests that attachment is more complex and involved more processes than an association between food and a primary caregiver.
How does Bowlby suggests that children form attachments?
Bowlby suggested that attachment is an innate process that is particularly important due to evolution (a change in an inherited characteristic over time).
This explains attachment as it is rooted in biology (has become programmed into human beings) and has been found to operate similarly in all cultures. Its purpose is also adaptive as it is meant to keep the infant close to the PCG for safety and protection and to develop a loving relationship which can be passed on to generations to prevent loneliness
What are the main principles of Bowlby’s Theory of attachment?
Monotropy
Critical period
Social Releasers
Internal Working Model
Continuity Hypotheses
Law of continuity
Law of accumulated separation
Evaluate Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory of Attachment
There is mixed evidence supporting Monotropy as an explanation for attachment.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that although babies did attach to one person at first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time and this contradicts the theory of monotropy.
Furthermore, although the first attachment appears to have particularly strong influence on later behavior, this may simply mean that it is stronger, not necessarily different in quality, e.g other attachments provide the same key qualities (emotional support, safe base).
This is a weakness of the theory as there are inconsistencies which suggest that Bowlby’s theory may be incorrect that there is a unique quality and importance to the child’s primary attachment.
There is evidence supporting social releasers.
Brazelton et al (1975) observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers. The researchers then instructed the primary caregivers to ignore social releasers (referred to as still-face experiment). Babies became increasingly distressed and some curled up and lay motionless.
This is clear evidence that the cute baby behaviors are designed to elicit interactions from caregivers.
This is a strength of the theory as it has high scientific credibility and illustrates the role of social releasers in emotional development and development of an attachment which suggests that they are important.
There is also support for the Internal Working Model
Bailey et al (2007) assessed the attachment quality in 99 mothers and their PCGS, and the same mothers and their one year old babies. They found that mothers with poor attachment to their own PCG’s were more likely to have poorly attached babies and those with strong attachment with their mothers were more likely to have strong attachment with their babies.
This presents the idea that the Internal Working Model predicts patterns of attachment will be passed from one generation to the next.
However, it is possible that genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affects social behavior in babies and adults could have impacted parenting and not the Internal Working Model.
This is a weakness as it supports the Continuity Hypothesis and the idea that a primary caregivers ability to form attachment with their babies is influenced by their Internal Working Model which gives Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory scientific credibility.
How did Ainsworth investigate the Strange SItuation?
It was originally carried out as a naturalistic observation using 100 middle class mothers infants between the age of twelve and eighteen months as participants. It involves a series of episodes where the child is left alone in a room while adults come in and out of it.
The procedure observed five key attachment behaviours as a way of measuring the quality of an attachment including exploration and secure base behaviour (using the primary caregiver as a point of comfort to make them feel safe and confident enough to explore), proximity seeking (staying fairly close to the primary caregiver), stranger anxiety (distress when an unfamiliar person approaches), separation anxiety (distress when the primary caregiver is absent) and response to reunion (reaction when the primary caregiver is present).
What are the three types of attachments?
Secure Attachment (Type B) was about sixty to seventy-five percent of the sample and they are classified by children who explore happily, seek proximity, show moderate separation and stranger anxiety and are easily comforted upon primary caregivers return.
Insecure-Avoidant Attachment (Type A) was about twenty to thirty-five percent of the sample and they are classified by children who explore happily, do not seek proximity, show low separation and stranger anxiety and avoid contact on primary caregivers return.
Insecure-Resistant Attachment (Type C) was about three percent of the sample and are classified by children who show little exploration, greater proximity seeking, high separation and stranger anxiety and are not easily comforted on primary caregivers return.
Evaluate the strange situation
The strange situation classification has been found to have good reliability.
This was first demonstrated by Main et al (1985) as they tested babies at 18 months and then retested them at the age of 6. They found that 100% of the secure babies were still classified as secure while 75% of the Insecure-Avoidant infants were still under the same classification. This gives the classification test-retest reliability as it is consistent over time.
Ainsworth also tested the extent to which different observers score behaviour in a similar way, which is referred to as Inter-rater reliability and this was found to be very high. Bick (2012) also looked at the Inter-rater reliability in a team of trained Strange Situation observers and found an agreement of attachment type for 94% of the tested babies.
This is an advantage of the procedure as we can be confident that the results are consistent over time and do not depend on subjective judgement (there is no bias). Therefore, it is a useful and valuable tool for psychology.
The Strange Situation may be a culture bound test.
In this aspect, there is some doubt because the results from the procedure do not have the same meaning in other countries outside of Western Europe and USA. This is the case because cultural differences in childhood experiences are likely to mean that children are likely to respond differently to the Strange Situation and that caregivers from different cultures behave differently in the Strange Situation.
For example, Takahasi (1990) has noted that the test does not really work in Japan because Japanese mothers are rarely seperated from their babies that, as expected, there are high levels of seperation anxiety, due to surprise (not necessarily low quality attachment). Furthermore, during reunions, it was difficult to observe the babies’ reactions as the mothers rushed to scoop their babies into their hands.
This is a weakness of Ainsworth’s study because it lowers the validity as it may not be ideal to measure quality of attachment types in different cultural contexts outside of Western Europe and USA.
There is at least one more attachment type.
Ainsworth conceived three attachment types which include Insecure-Avoidant, Secure and Insecure-Resistant. However, Main and Solomon (1986) pointed out that a minority of children display atypical attachment that do not fall within the types of A,B or C behaviour.
Instead, they show an odd mix of avoidant and resistant behaviours, commonly known as Disorganised Attachmment (Type D).
This challenges Ainsworth’s idea of attachment types as it suggests that some infants show inconsistent behaviour which suggests that the study was unsuccessful at classifying attachment. Hence, the process is incomplete and lacks internal validity.
Who investigated the cultural variations in attachment and how?
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) carried out a meta-analysis combining the findings of 32 other studies of the strange situation from a variety of countries and based on the observation of over 2000 children to compare the proportions of secure, Insecure-Avoidant and insecure-resistant attachment across and within countries to get an idea of the variations between and within a culture.
They did this by means of a meta-analysis combining the findings of thirty-two different studies where the strange situation was used to investigate the quality of attachment. These studies were conducted in eight countries, fifteen of which were in the USA.
What were the findings in the cultural variations analysis?
There was a wide variation between the proportions of attachment types in different studies. However, they found that secure attachment was the most common classification with the highest percentage being in Great Britain (75%) and the lowest being in China (50%). In collectivist countries, there was a higher percentage of insecure-Resistant attachment with Israel having the highest with 28.8% while in individualistic countries, there was a higher percentage of insecure-avoidant attachment with USA having the highest with 14.1%.
An interesting finding was that variations between results of studies within the same country was actually 150% greater than between countries. In one study in the USA, for example, one study found 46% attached while another found 90% securely attached. This is due to subcultural differences.
What were the conclusions of the cultural variations analysis?
In conclusion, secure Attachment is the norm in a wide range of cultures which supports Bowlby’s theory that attachment is hardwired despite cultural differences. Finally, children from different cultures show different attachment styles due to different norms and values within that culture regarding parenting and child rearing e.g Japanese parents sought to always be present while German parents praise independence.
Evaluate the cultural variations analysis
A large sample was used in the meta-analysis.
Combining the results of the attachment studies carried out in different countries is that there is a substantial sample size.
For example, in the Van Ijzendoorn meta-analysis, there are a total of nearly 2000 infants and their primary caregiver attachment figures.
This is a strength because it is more generalisable to the population which increases the population validity. It also impacts the impact of anomalous results on statistical analyses caused by bad methodology or very unusual participants which does not skew data and increases internal validity.
Samples tend to be unrepresentative of culture.
Van Ijzendoorn’s meta-analysis claimed to study cultural variations, whereas, the comparisons were between countries not cultures. Within any country, there are many cultures with different child-rearing practices. For example, one sample might over-represent people living with poverty and the stress of this might affect caregiving and the patterns of attachment.
An analysis by Van Ijzendoorn and Sami (2001) found that distributions of attachment type in Tokyo (an urban setting) were similar to Western studies, whereas a more rural sample had an over-representation of insecure-resistant attachments.
This is a weakness as it suggests that comparison between countries has little meaning. However, the meta-analysis would be more valid if the particular cultural characteristics (and caregiving styles) of the sample were specified e.g saying Tokyo instead of the whole of Japan.
The method of assessment is biassed.
Cross cultural psychology includes the idea of an etic (cultural universal) and emic (cultural uniqueness). The strange situation was designed by an American researcher (Ainsworth) based on a British theory (Bowlby’s). Therefore, a question is raised as to whether Anglo-American theories and assessments can be applied to other cultures.
Applying a theory or technique designed for one culture to another culture is known as an imposed etic. An example of this may be the idea that a lack of separation anxiety and lack of pleasure on reunion indicated an insecure attachment in the Strange Situation when in Germany, this behaviour may be seen as independence than avoidance and hence not a sign of insecurity within that cultural context (Grossman and Grossman, 1990).
This is a weakness as it means that behaviours measured by the strange situation may not have the same meaning in different cultural contexts and comparing them is meaningless.
Explain Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation
Bowlby (1951) considered that a strong attachment to a mother figure was essential for psychological, emotional and intellectual development (Monotropic theory). His theory of Maternal Deprivation explains what happens if these attachments are broken. This is different from separation or privation. A disruption of a bond between an infant and caregiver during the critical period (approx. first two and a half years) can have serious consequences, such as delayed intellectual development manifested by lowered IQ and mentally retardation or impacted emotional development through affectionless psychopathy (inability to experience guilt or strong emotions towards others) and these effects are irreversible and inevitable.
How did Bowlby’s investigate his theory of Maternal Deprivation?
To investigate the links between teenage delinquency, Affectionless Psychopathy and Maternal Deprivation, Bowlby interviewed 44 teenage delinquents and their families searching for any signs of Maternal Deprivation and compared them to a control group of non-criminal teenagers. He found that between the two groups, there was a higher number of thieves that had experienced prolonged maternal separation and concluded that it increases the risk of crime. Bowlby also found that more than a quarter of the group of thieves were affectionless psychopaths while there were none in the control group and concluded that maternal deprivation also increases the risk of Affectionless psychopathy.
Evaluate Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation
There is flawed evidence supporting Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation.
Bowlby drew on a number of sources of evidence for maternal deprivation including studies of children orphaned during the Second World War, those growing up in poor quality orphanages and his 44 thieves study.
However, these are all flawed as sources of evidence. War orphans, for example, were traumatised and often have poor after care, therefore, these factors might have played a much greater role in later development difficulties than separation. Furthermore, in his 44 thieves study, bias is a major design flaw as Bowlby carried out the assessment for affectionless psychopathy and the family interviews himself, knowing what he hoped to find so he could have been searching for certain traits. This could have been avoided if he had used a blind interviewer (blind to the IV) which would have reduced the probability of experimenter bias.
This is a weakness as the evidence base lacks control of other variables which lowers the internal validity.
Research from animal studies is supporting evidence of Maternal Deprivation.
Although most psychologists are very critical of the theory of Maternal deprivation, an interesting line of research has provided some support for the idea that it can have long-term effects.
Levy et al (2003) showed that separating baby rats from their mothers for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development though not other aspects of development.
However, some challenge the usefulness of this research as humans are more emotionally complex and intelligent than rats so it may not be appropriate to use this as supporting evidence.
This is a strength of the theory as it is reliable and supports Bowlby’s theory.
There are speculations as to whether the critical period is more of a sensitive period.
Koluchova (1976) reported the case of twin boys from Czechoslovakia who were isolated from the age of 18 months until they were 7 years old by their stepmother who locked them in a cupboard.
Subsequently, they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully.
As this is a case study, it is an unusual occurrence with a small sample size and cannot be generalised to the wider population.
This is a weakness as it contradicts Bowlby’s conclusion about the irreversible damage of Maternal Deprivation. His findings were not replicated in this case study, showing low reliability and challenging his validity.
What sparked the Institutionalisation study?
The Ceausescu regime in Romania aimed to increase the population by putting a pronatalist policy in place. Many children had to be put in orphanages because few families could look after their children where there was very little physical and emotional care and no cognitive stimulation. When the regime collapsed in 1989, the children were found and adopted outside Romania i.e in the UK, USA, Canada.
What did Rutter argue regarding Institutionalisation and how did he investigate this?
Michael Rutter argued that if a child fails to develop an attachment this is privation, whereas Deprivation refers to the loss of or damage to an attachment and this is more likely to happen if there is poor emotional care although it can also happen outside institutions in situations where there is severe neglect.
To investigate the effect of Institutionalisation on development, Rutter conducted a study using a sample of 165 Romanian children who previously lived in institutions, 111 of which were adopted before the age of 2 and 54 were adopted by the age of 4. They were compared to a control group of 52 British children adopted by the age of 6 months. Both groups of children were tested regularly for physical, social and cognitive development at the age of 4, 6, 11 and 15.
What did Rutter find and conclude regarding institutionalisation?
At the time of adoption, the Romanian children were severely undernourished and classified as mentally retarded (i.e cognitive behind the British children).
At the age of 11, those adopted before 6 months had an IQ of 102, those adopted between the age of 6 months and 2 years had an IQ of 86 while those adopted after 2 years had an IQ of 77. These differences remained until they were 16.
By 4, most of the Romanian children who have been adopted by the age of 6 months have caught up with the British children. Many of the children adopted after the age of 6 months, however, showed disinhibited attachment (no preference of parents over others, seeking attention and comfort from virtually anyone) and had difficulties with peer relationships.
From this data, Rutter concluded that the longer children are institutionalised for, the more damaging for their development and attachment.
Evaluate the effects of Institutionalisation
The findings from Rutter and Songua-Barke’s findings can be applied to real life.
The study changed the way that adopted children were looked after. Historically, mothers were encouraged to keep their babies for a long period of time, by which the critical period will have passed. Nowadays, infants are adopted as early as one week old in the hope that children become securely attached to their adoptive families.
Furthermore, specific key workers are allocated to each child instead of having a large number of care workers. Finally, institutional care is now largely seen as a last resort while adoption and fostering are seen as more beneficial. This is evidenced by both Zeenah et al (2005) and Rutter et al (2010) as there can be dire effects of institutionalisation.
There are speculations as to whether there are issues of generalisation as the dire conditions in Romanian orphanages do not represent all situations where children are placed in care and experience deprivation.
This is a strength of the research as the findings can be used to improve the quality of life of adoptee and adoptive parents.
Many confounding variables exist in adoption studies.
Although much useful data about Institutionalisation has come out of Romanian orphan studies, it is possible that the conditions were so bad that the results cannot be applied to understanding the impact of better quality institutional care or indeed any situation where children experience deprivation.
For example, Romanian orphanages had particularly poor standards of care, especially when it came to forming any relationship with children, and extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation.
This is a limitation as it suggests that there are multiple risk factors involved when looking at the effects of institutional care. Therefore, it is difficult to interpret the results of the study as solely being due to Institutionalisation or Privation as there are many different influences that affected the children. This reduced the internal validity of the conclusions of these studies.
Rutter et al’s research was also conducted as a longitudinal study.
Following the same adoptee over time reduces participant effects (tailoring their behaviour or response to fit the investigators response).
The research took place over many years allowing them to assess the long-term effects and the short-term effects of the Institutionalisation and the change over time. Finally, the benefits of adoption could be assessed and directly compared to the consequences of Institutionalization.
This is a strength as the supporting evidence produces an accurate (as extraneous variables were eliminated) and valid explanation of the long-term effects of Institutionalization.
Summarise the influence of Early Attachment on Later Relationships
According to Bowlby’s Theory we form our primary attachment, we also make a mental representation of what a relationship is (an internal working model) which we then use for all other relationships in the future e.g friendships, working and romantic relationships.
Therefore, our later relationships will be influenced by our early attachment style, this is known as the Continuity Hypothesis. This implies then that we should find a positive correlation.
Explain the infleuce of early attachments on Later childhood
The first attachment we form is to our parents and will depend on how sensitive the mothers care is, as suggested by Ainsworth.
The quality of the child’s first attachment is crucial because this template will powerfully affect the nature of their future relationship, e.g a child’s first experience of a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to assume this is how relationships are meant to be and a child with bad experiences of their first attachment will bring these bad experiences to bear on later relationships.
This may mean that they struggle to form relationships in the first place, or they may not behave appropriately when they have thm, displaying Type A behaviour (too uninvolved or too emotionally distant) or Type C behaviour (controlling or argumentative) towards friends and partners.
State and explain the two sets of researchers who investigated the influence of Early attachments on Later childhood
Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998) assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using questionnaires in 196 children and 7-11 from London. They found Secure children were very unlikely to be involved in bullying while Insecure-Avoidant were most likely to be victims and Insecure-resistant children were most likely to be bullies.
According to the theory, the child who has a secure Attachment style should be more confident in interactions with friends. Sroufe et al supported this idea by conducting the Minnesota Theory (2005) which followed participants from infancy to late adolescence and found continuity between early attachments and later emotional/social behaviour. They found that securely attached children were more socially competent later in childhood, were less isolated and more popular than in securely attached children. These results can be explained by considering the role of IWM since infants who are securely attached will have positive expectations that others whom they relate to will be trustworthy and friendly in return, which provides the ideal platform for interacting with others during childhood.
How can early attachments influence parenting
As much as it affects childhood relationships, IWM also influences the parenting style of an individual who goes on to have children of their own.
It is based on personal experiences and attachment types tend to be passed down through generations of a family.
Who investigated the influence of Early attachment on parenting and what did they find?
Bailey et al (2007) assessed 99 mothers with one year old babies on the quality of attachment to their own mothers using standard interview procedure. They found that mothers who reported poor attachment to their own mothers in the interviews were also likely to have children classified as poorly attached according to the observation,
This suggests that a majority of women had the same classification both to their babies and their mothers
Who investigated the influence of Early attachments on romantic adult relationships and how?
Hazan and Shaver (1987) were interested in Bowlby’s idea of an internal Working model so they wanted to investigate if there was a correlation between the infant’s attachment type and their future approach to romantic relationships.
To do this, they devised a ‘Love Quiz’ which consisted of two components: a measure of attachment type (a simple adjective checklist of relationship with parents and the parents’ relationship with each other) and a love experience questionnaire (i.e individual’s belief of romantic love).
What did the researchers who investigated the influence of Early attachments on Later Relationships find and conclude?
Hazan and Shaver found a strikingly high correlation between the infant attachment types and the adult romantic love styles. In terms of attachment style, 56 percent classified themselves as secure, 25 percent as avoidant and 19 percent as resistant. They discovered that secure adults were more trusting of others and believe in enduring love, resistant adults would fall in love easily but have trouble finding true love while avoidant thought that love is not durable nor necessary for happiness. Love experience and attitudes towards (internal Working model) were related to attachment type.
Hence, they concluded that there was evidence to support the concept of the inner working model having a life-long effect. However, they did concede that not everyone stayed true to their infant attachment style and that some people did change as they grew older.
Evaluate the influence of Early attachments on Later Relationships
The supporting evidence on the continuity of attachment is mixed.
After reviewing the available evidence, Fearon and Roisamn (2017) concluded that early attachment consistently predicts later relationship outcomes. As mentioned, early studies, such as Hazan and Shaver, do appear to support continuity and so provide evidence for this internal working model.
However, there were variations in the data; the predictive value of Insecure-Avoidant has been described as mild whilst early Disorganised Attachment is strongly related to later mental disorders.
However, several key studies have shown no evidence of continuity. Zimmerman (2000) found very little relationship between early and later attachment. No evidence was found by Becker-Stoll et al (2008) either.
This is an issue because empirical evidence exists that challenges the assumptions of attachment theory and reduces the reliability of the main evidence base.
Association does not mean causation.
In those studies where infant attachment type is associated with the quality of later relationships the implication is that the infant attachment type directly causes the attachment. However, there are alternative explanations that often exist between infant and later relationships.
A third environmental factor (which influences both conditions of the independent variable), such as a child’s temperament may influence both infant attachment and the quality of later relationships. Therefore, whilst association has been found by many researchers indicating the quality of later relationships being influenced by early attachments from infancy, this does not determine causation.
This is a limitation as it counters Bowlby’s view that the internal working model causes these later outcomes, as other factors may have been influential so we cannot assume causation.
Finally, the influence of early attachment is probabilistic.
Although it does seem likely that the quality of infants’ attachments is an influence on later relationships, some attachment researchers, including Bowlby, have probably exaggerated the significance of this influence and have set views on the outcome for future behaviour. For example, saying an infant with an insecure attachment type will be ‘doomed’ to experience poor quality and unsatisfying relationships later in life as a result of the internal working model formed in infancy from bad experiences with their primary caregiver.
Clarke and Clarke (1998) described the influence of infant attachment on later relationships as probable so they just have a greater risk of problems. There is a greater risk by emphasising the risk and becoming pessimistic about people’s futures. Instead, as demonstrated by Becker-Stoll et al (2008) and Zimmerman (2000), this is an opportunity to intervene with deliberate choice.
This is a limitation as the Continuity Hypothesis may be overly deterministic in predicting the quality of adult relationships. It may also present an overly pessimistic view of human relationships.
