Attachment

Question 1

What is caregiver infant interactions?

Answer 1

• from birth, babies and mothers spend a lot of time in intense and pleasurable interaction
• babies have periodic ‘alert phases’ and signal they are ready for interaction

Question 2

What are the attachment behaviours?

Answer 2

proximity; trying to stay close together

separation distress; distressed when away from primary caregiver

secure base; exploration but returns for safety

Question 3

What is reciprocity?

Answer 3

• each person responds to each other and elicits a response from them
• from around 3 months tends to be more frequent

Question 4

What is interactional synchrony?

Answer 4

• mother and baby mirror each others actions and emotions
• occurs from 2 weeks old
• provides necessary foundation for mother and infant connection to which it can be built upon
• high synchrony results in higher quality
  MELTZOFF & MOORE (1977)

Question 5

Evaluation of caregiver infant interactions.

Answer 5

strength; high levels of validity. Meltzoff and Moore (1977) filmed infant responses, asked observers who didn’t know what behaviours were being copied to judge and record the infants’ behaviours(single blind). TMB babies’ faces are usually in constant motion, which makes it difficult to know if their facial expressions are deliberate or
random. This helped ensure they were measuring what they were claiming to, and there was no bias or interpretation.

strength; Supporting research. Abravanel & DeYong (1991) observed infant behaviour when interacting with two objects to stimulate mouth movements. Found very little response from infants aged 5-12 weeks. TMB supports babies are predisposed to respond to human interactions specifically to help attachment. Adding value.

limitation; Contradicting evidence. Koepke (1983) failed to replicate
Meltzoff & Moore findings, as the infants did not copy the behaviour in their study. TMB Meltzoff & Moore’s
research is not reliable. Infants were not
imitating their parents’ expressions purposely, making random responses. Limits validity.

limitation; Individual differences. Isabella (1989) found greater levels
of interactional synchrony in mothers and babies that were more
strongly attached. TMB shows that interactional synchrony is not the same for all infants nor is it automatic, but depends on the quality of the attachment bond, which contradicts what Meltzoff and Moore claimed.

Question 6

KEY STUDY - Glasgow babies- Schaffer & Emerson, 1964

Answer 6

SCHAFFER & EMERSON
- conducted observations & interviews to identify stages of attachment
- 60 infants (5weeks-23weeks)
- studies until they were 1
- visited evert 4 weeks
- mums reported responses of babies to separation in everyday tasks
- 50% showed separation anxiety
- 40 weeks- 80% of babies had a specific attachment & 30% had multiple attachments.

Question 7

What are the stages of attachment?

Answer 7

• ASOCIAL; 0-8wks, behaviour between humans and non-human objects similar, recognise similar faces, smile at anyone
• INDISCRIMINATE ATTACHMENT; 2-7 months, prefer familiar people, accept comfort from anyone

-SPECIFIC ATTACHMENT; 7-12 months, primarily attached to one individual, stranger & separation anxiety, use familiar adults as secure bases.

MULTIPLE ATTACHMENTS; 1yr, form secondary attachments with adults they spend time with (grandparents)

Question 8

Evaluation of stages of attachment.

Answer 8

strength; high eco validity, done in family homes, reflective of real life, adding validity.

strength; longitudinal study, better than looking at diff groups of kids, better internal validity, same ptp variables.

limitation; difficult to assess behaviour in asocial stage, babies shave few movements and behaviours so difficult to observe. Requires researcher interpretation, could be biased and lack validity. reduces validity.

limitation; cultural variations. Sagi (1994) babies from collectivist cultures develop multiple attachments earlier- shared childcare. S&F findings may be culture-bound, limits validity.

Question 9

What is the role of the father (Schaffer & Emerson, 1964)

Answer 9

• majority of babies become attached to mum first (7 months)
• 3% of cases was father sole object of attachment with father (18 months)
• father becomes secondary care-giver

Question 10

Fathers role is important (Grossman)

Answer 10

• found quality of attachment with father was less important in teenagers than quality of attachment with mothers
• fathers may be less important in long term development

Question 11

Fathers play a more important role.

Answer 11

FIELD (1978)- fathers have a diff role in attachment- more to do with play and stimulation and less to do with nurturing
LAMB (2003)- can take on role of primary caregiver and they adopt more behaviours typical of mothers such as; smiling, imitating and holding infants

Question 12

Evaluation of the Role of the father.

Answer 12

strength; role of the father can be explained through biological and gender differences. Females are typically more nurturing and caring than men. Also, female hormones such as oestrogen create higher levels of nurturing behaviour. TMB, it suggests that women may just be biologically pre-disposed to to be the primary attachment figure. Thus strengthening research into the role of the father.

limitation; inconsistent findings into the role of the father. For example, different researchers are interested in different things, like the father as the primary attachment figure or the secondary figure. Some research suggests that the father cannot be the primary the figure and others suggests that they can take on a ‘maternal role’. TMB, conflicting findings cannot answer the ‘role of the father’, these inconsistencies cannot create a firm conclusion.

Question 13

KEY STUDY- animal studies- Lorenz (1952), imprinting

Answer 13

LORENZ
- divided 12 goose eggs into natural conditions (raised by mum goose) and into an incubator, when hatched the first thing they saw was Lorenz (6 each)

• group that were incubated followed Lorenz- thought he was mum
• he identified critical period in which imprinting needs to take place (few hours after hatching)
• if imprinting didn’t occur during that time, the chicks did not attach themselves to the mother figure.

Question 14

Evaluation of Lorenz (1952)- imprinting

Answer 14

• strength; research support, Guiton (1966) found chicks exposed to rubber gloves imprinted on the gloves. Supports the view that young animals are predisposed to imprint on mother, but rather anything that is present during critical period after birth, thus supporting Lorenz’s findings.

strength; Lorenz’s findings are important, findings highlighted critical period which influenced Bowlby’s theory. The idea that the critical period is highly important and if not fulfilled there would be negative consequences has been very influential for research into babies and parents. It has allowed for the findings to be applied to humans with many practical applications such as the best time for adoption, thus adding validity to imprinting.

limitation; imprinting not as permanent as Lorenz suggested. Guiton found that as the chickens grew they tried to mate with the rubber glove (which supports Lorenz’s theory) but with experience they learned to mate with other chickens. Highlights that imprinting is not totally permanent and can change, limiting findings of Lorenz.

limitation; difficulty generalising. Lorenz study carried out on birds which are non-human animals, although some aspects can be applied there are stark differences in characteristics of attachment of birds and humans, such as humans are much more affectionate to offspring compared to that of geese. thus limiting the use of lorenz’s findings to explain attachment in humans.

Question 15

KEY STUDY- animal studies- Harlow(1958), attachment in monkeys

Answer 15

HARLOW
- 16 Rhesus monkeys with 2 wire mothers
- Condition A; milk dispensed by wire mother (no cloth)
- Condition B; milk dispensed by wire mother with cloth

• monkeys cuddled the cloth mother in preference to wire one regardless of milk dispensed.
• contact comfort more important than food
• went to cloth mum for comfort when scared (scary stimulus given in room)

Question 16

Evaluation of Harlow (1958)- attachment in monkeys.

Answer 16

strength; valuable contribution to psychology. the monkeys preferred cloth mother regardless of if she fed them or not. Provides support for Bowlby’s monotropic theory and refutes the learning theory that attachment is developed through food. Provides an insight into what is needed for an attachment to be established.

limitation; carried out on animals. His use of monkeys limits generalisability, as well as the fact there away from their natural environment. This limits the usefulness of the findings to be applied to humans.

limitation; there was a cofounding variable. The two mothers had different faces as well as one being clothed and the other wired. The cloth mother had a face which is more similar to monkeys
than the other, which could be the reason why the monkeys preferred it. Affected internal validity, means Harlow may not have measured the monkeys’ preference to the cloth or wire mother, but instead which face they preferred. Limits validity.

limitation; ethical issues, monkeys were taken from their mothers at birth, kept isolated in cages and scared. Monkeys are social animals so likely they suffered greatly from the harm they were
subjected to. New guidelines for animal rights would no longer allow this, so can’t be replicated to test the reliability of findings. (COUNTER) However, it could be argued that the significance of the findings and the contributions made to society justify the maltreatment.

Question 17

Learning theory to explain attachment- cupboard love. Dollard & Miller (1950)

Answer 17

• classical conditioning suggests that food is important in forming attachments
• children attach to those that feed them (person that feeds them the most is the strongest attachment

Question 18

Learning theory to explain attachment- Role of operant conditioning.

Answer 18

Drive reduction theory – When an animal is uncomfortable this creates a
drive to reduce this discomfort e.g. a hungry infant has a drive to reduce
the accompanying discomfort.

• explains why babies cry for comfort
• pos-reinforcement; baby cries in order to receive response from care giver, as long as correct response baby stops crying (being fed, held, etc.)
• neg-reinforcement; caregiver being reinforced, removal of negative object (baby crying) this reinforces the parent to give baby what it wants in order for it stop crying

Question 19

Learning theory to explain attachment- Role of classical conditioning.

Answer 19

• CC involves association of 2 stimuli
• UCS (food) leads to UCR (pleasure)
• UCS + NS (caregiver) = UCR (pleasure)
• caregiver becomes CS which leads pleasure to become CR, bay feels pleasure when caregiver is present even without food.

Question 20

Learning theory to explain attachment- Hunger.

Answer 20

• primary drive, innate biological motivator. Motivated to eat to reduce hunger drive, attachment therefore second drive, learned by association.

Question 21

Evaluation of the Learning theory to explain attachment.

Answer 21

strength; explain aspects of attachment, suggests that children form positive associations between being fed and pleasure with the caregiver. TMB although it doesn’t provide a complete
explanation of attachment, infants do learn through association and
reinforcement. However, it is likely food is not the main reinforcer, but as other evidence suggests contact comfort and parent responsiveness are. Still has some value to help our understanding of attachment.

limitation; counter evidence from animal research. Harlow’s monkeys displayed a preference for contact comfort rather than food. TMB shows comfort more significant in forming an attachment than food, therefore challenging learning theory. Limiting because lack of evidence to support it.

limitation; ignores other factors in forming attachments. Schaffer & Emerson found that babies attachment forms with caregiver who responds best to their needs not limited to food. Shows attachment does not result solely from an association with who feeds the baby, but is more linked to how caregivers respond and interact with their baby. Challenges learning theory as it focuses on frequency of the interaction through feeding patterns, rather than the quality of the interactions and level of responsiveness. limiting validity.

limitation; better explanations. Bowlby’s theory explains it as an evolutionary behaviour which enhances survival and protects them from harm. Better as Bowlby explains why attachment forms where learning theory explains how they form. Also offers no explanation of advantages of attachment. Bowlby is also supported by other researchers, such S&F. limiting use of learning theory.

Question 22

Bowlby’s monotropic theory- Adaptive

Answer 22

Attachment is an innate behaviour which ensures survival

Question 23

Bowlby’s monotropic theory- monotropy

Answer 23

• biological innate system that gives a survival advantage, emphasises the child’s attachment to 1 caregiver (primary attachment) - most important attachment.
• children can develop other attachments to adults, known as secondary attachments, not as important
• quality not quantity

Question 24

Bowlby’s monotropic theory- social releasers.

Answer 24

• babies born with innate ‘cute’ behaviours that encourage attention from adults. (crying, smiling, laughing)

Question 25

Bowlby’s monotropic theory- critical period.

Answer 25

• critical period of 2 years when the attachment system is active, harder to form attachment after this time.

Question 26

Bowlby’s monotropic theory- primary attachment figure.

Answer 26

• more time baby spends with primary figure the better-

law of continuity; more constant a child’s care, the better quality of attachment.

law of accumulated separation; effects of everyday separation add up, safest dose is a zero dose.

Question 27

Bowlby’s monotropic theory- internal working model

Answer 27

• child forms a mental representation of the relationship with their primary attachment figure. Serves as a ‘template’ for how relationships should be (continuity hypothesis)

Question 28

Bowlby’s monotropic theory- continuity hypothesis

Answer 28

• suggests that children with a secure attachment will grow up having more competent relationships compared to those who have an insecure attachment.

Question 29

Evaluation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory.

Answer 29

strength; animal research as support- Lorenz & Harlow studied attachment in different animals and both found evidence to support the idea that attachment is an innate behaviour that aids survival (such as imprinting on mother to learn how to feed- Lorenz). TMB it emphasises the importance of the critical period (from birth onwards). Thus supporting Bowlby’s monotropic theory.

strength; support for continuity hypothesis- Hazan & Shaver- love quiz, designed to test internal working model (early attachment types on later attachment). Supports role of internal working model and continuity hypothesis

limitation; issue with the critical period. Rutter (2010), found children unable to form attachment in critical period are able to form them later although much harder and less likely. Suggests critical period needs to be reviewed and perhaps labelled ‘sensitive period’ meaning its ideal to form attachment in this period but not impossible to not form one after it. Thus limiting use of Bowlby’s theory to explain attachment.

limitation; there is an alternative explanation. Kagan (1984) suggested that a child’s personality type determines what type of attachment they form with the primary caregiver. Contrasts Bowlby’s theory that it’s parents responsiveness to child’s signals that forms the attachment. However, parents of children with more ‘difficult’ temperaments may find it harder to respond positively to their needs. Thus limiting Bowlby’s theory as it doesn’t fully take into account all factors.

Question 30

Types of attachment- Ainsworth, Strange situation test.

Answer 30

KEY STUDY

Aim- to see how 106 infants aged between 9-18 months behave under moderate stress

Controlled observation to record how mother and child interact/behave under 8 different scenarios. In a lab (controlled playroom) using a two way mirror. Multiple observers recording behaviour.

4 main behaviours observed; exploration behaviour (mother considered a secure base?), stranger anxiety, separation anxiety & reunion behaviour.

1)mum and baby enter room. 2)mum responds to child if wants attention. 3) stranger enters, mum leaves. 4) mum returns, stranger leaves, baby settled mum leaves again. 5)baby alone. 6)stranger returns, is alone with baby. 7)mum returns and stranger leaves.

FINDINGS; different types of attachment-
TYPE A- 22% insecure avoidant
TYPE B- 66% secure attachment
TYPE C- 12% insecure resistant

Question 31

Types of attachment- What are the types of attachment Ainsworth found, explain them?

Answer 31

TYPE A- Insecure avoidant- 22%
- Baby ignores mother due to indifference - not a secure base so baby doing own thing
- no or little sign of distress when mother absent
- distress caused when alone, but can be comforted by stranger

TYPE B- Secure attachment- 66%
- play happily when mum present (regardless of stranger presence), mum is secure base
- moderately distressed when mum leaves & seeks immediate contact with her when she returns, calms down quickly
- distress caused by mums absence, stranger & mum treated differently

TYPE C- Insecure resistant- 12%
- baby fussy and wary when mum is presnt
- difficulty using mum as secure base
- very distressed when mum absent, seeks comfort on her return but shows anger at her and resists contact (not fully comforted when she returns)
- resists stranger

Question 32

Evaluation of types of attachment- Ainsworth strange situation test.

Answer 32

strength; high inter-observer reliability. 0.94 level of agreement between observers, means that different observers agreed on what behaviour was being displayed almost all the time. TMB supports that strange situation test is a reliable way to measure the type of attachment a child has. Validates use of SST to measure attachment.

strength; predictive validity. Hazan & Shaver (1987), collected data about adult attachment styles, found that attachment styles as adult correlated positively their childhood attachment styles. TMB shows Ainsworth test was a valid measurement and it can be used to predict future behaviour accurately. Supporting use of the SST.

limitation; issue with the classification of attachment types. Main & Solomon (1986), suggested a 4th attachment type - ‘disorganised’, children not showing any particular pattern of behaviour that enables them to fall into any of the other types,. TMB suggests that Ainsworth’s classification was over simplified and did not take into account all attachment behaviours. Thus limiting SST.

limitation; culture-bound research. Takashi (1990), notes that babies in Japan are rarely separated from their mothers, thus these infants would demonstrate higher levels of separation anxiety. TMB it means that the SST may not have been applicable outside of Western cultures, as cultural differences in children’s experiences mean they respond differently, perhaps them being labelled incorrectly in terms of their attachment type. This could have negative connotations by not being labelled as having a secure attachment. Thus limiting the use of Ainsworth’s strange situation test outside of a Westernised culture.

Question 33

Cultural variations in attachment- Van Ljzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988)

Answer 33

KEY STUDY

• completed a meta-analysis on 32 studies using SST
• 8 countries in total
• just under 2,000 babies studied.

FINDINGS
- Secure attachment most common in all countries
- Germany had highest number of avoidant children
- Japan & Israel had very few avoidant children but high resistant children

Question 34

Cultural variations in attachment- Other cultural research.

Answer 34

Tronick (1992)- tribe in Zaire- supports secure attachment being most common

Grossman & Grossman (1991)- high insecure avoidant in German children

Takahashi (1990)- high insecure-resistant in Japanese children.

Question 35

Evaluation of cultural variations in attachment.

Answer 35

strength; research support for Van Ljzendoorn & Kroonenberg. Tronick (1992), studies a tribe in Africa, found that although their child rearing practices are different to that of western cultures, children were still found to have a primary attachment. TMB highlights that attachment is an innate, biological behaviour, just like Bowlby suggested.

Question 36

Evaluation of Ainsworth’s strange situation test using cultural research.

Answer 36

limitation; has imposed etic (applying the findings of research across all cultures where it may not be applicable to do so). Attachment types from the UK/US have been applied in the same way in other cultures, without taking into account their differences. TMB this cultural bias means that children may be labelled incorrectly when they have nothing wrong with them in context of their own culture.

limitation; criteria of insecure attachments is wrong in certain cultures. For example, in west Germany, the lack of separation anxiety is actually praised and encourages as it suggests independence. TMB it is bad to label these children as having an insecure attachment type within that cultural context. This shows that the findings are not universal and cannot be applied to everyone in the same way, lacking generalisability.

Question 37

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation.

Answer 37

• deprivation occurs when a bond between infant and carer is broken in later life.
• ongoing depravation could result in maladjustment and poor relationships in the future.
• if a child is separated from their mother for an extended time during first 30 months, then psychological damage is inevitable.

Question 38

What are the effects of maternal deprivation.

Answer 38

• children deprived from maternal care for too long in the critical period will suffer mental retardation and abnormally low IQ.
• Lack of emotional care can lead to affectionless psychopathy

Question 39

KEY STUDY; Bowlby 44 thieves study (1944)

Answer 39

• 88 case studies, 44 thieves vs control group
• interviewed families, IQ tested, school reports, therapy notes from sessions with Bowlby.
• 14/44 thieves were described as affectionless psychopaths - none in control group.
• 12/14 of them had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first 2 years of life- compared to 2/44 control group.

Question 40

Evaluation of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation.

Answer 40

strength (counter); use of case studies provides a deep insight, Bowlby used a range of methods over a long period. However, it has methodological issues which affect the validity. Bowlby already had this theory in his mind therefore he may interpret the data in a way that fit his ideas (researcher bias). Thus limiting maternal deprivation theory.

strength; has real world applications, Robertson (1952), filmed a girl left in hospital for 8 days alone, she was very distressed. TMB, before Bowlby’s research children were left alone in the hospital, this showed the importance of of allowing children’s families to stay with them, especially in long-term stays. Led to drastic changes within hospital care. Thus demonstrates positive application of Bowlby’s theory.

strength; Research support from Harlow’s monkeys (not being able to mate with peers because they had been deprived of a bond in earlier life)

limitation; ignores individual differences. Barrett (1997), reviewed research into deprivation found that effects were worse if child insecurely attached. TMB shows neg effect of deprivation depends on the quality of attachment. Securely attached children are more resilient, therefore are able to suffer the effects of deprivation better. Thus showing Bowlby ignored important factors in maternal deprivation.

limitation; Didn’t distinguish between deprivation and privation. Rutter (1981), said that Bowlby did not make it clear whether a child’s attachment bond had formed and was broken (deprivation) or whether it had not formed at all (privation). He believed that the lack of attachment bond would have a more serious consequence than the loss of an attachment.

Question 41

What is institutionalisation?

Answer 41

• effects of living in an institute (hospital or orphanage)
• often little emotional connection
• can lead to mental, emotional and social problems

Question 42

KEY STUDY; Romanian Orphans - Effects of institutionalisation

Answer 42

• 165 Romanian orphans
• adopted at different ages, compared to the control group of British adoptees
• assessed cognitive, physical and social development

FINDINGS;
Deprivation dwarfism; slowed physical growth due to lack of attachment

Disinhibited attachment; the child is equally friendly and affectionate towards people they know well or are strangers, clingy & lacks boundaries

Damage to Intellectual development- institutionalised children often show signs of mental retardation, it’s not pronounced if they are adopted before 6 months.

Question 43

ROS- Rutter (2011)

Answer 43

• half of the orphans showed mental retardation.
• Adopted before 6 months - mean IQ of 102
• Adopted between 6 months- 2 years - mean IQ of 86.
• frequency of disinhibited attachment to the age of adoption.

Question 44

ROS- Zeanah (2005)

Answer 44

• 19% of institutionalised groups were securely attached
• 65% classified with disorganised attachment

Question 45

Evaluation of effects of institutionalisation- Romanian Orphan Study.

Answer 45

strength; real life applications. Rutter’s research into Romanian orphans demonstrated long-term neg effects of institutionalisation on children’s later development & highlighted importance of emotional care in critical period. TMB, shows need for early adoptions and the use of foster families so that children aren’t deprived of this care during the CP and are able to form an attachment. This results in children having better childhood’s. Thus…

strength; show the value of longitudinal research to understand human development. Rutter (2010) studied over 20 years. TMB, short studies suggest that the neg effects are permanent, however longitudinal studies suggests that these effects can be reversed if in continuous caring env. Thus shows value of such studies in showing true impact of institutionalisation.

limitation; cofounding variables in ROS. The children used in Rutters research lacked cog stimulation as kept in cots all day. They were also kept in poor conditions which may have effected their physical development. TMB as we cannot fully attribute the long-term effects of institutionalisation to lack of attachment and emotional care as other factors are at play. Thus limiting use of ROS to study institutionalisation.

limitation; individual differences in effects of institutionalisation. Rutter suggested that some children receive special treatment, like being smiled at more. TMB, not all children who experience institutionalisation fail to recover, and not all children are effected as bad as one another. Thus limiting the generalisability in the findings of ROS into the effects of institutionalisation.

Question 46

Effects of early life on relationships; key concepts.

Answer 46

internal working model; template on how relationships should be, based on primary attachment forced during critical period

continuity hypothesis; idea that primary attachment will predict future attachments and relationships (allows IWM to be operable)

Ainsworth Attachment types; secure, insecure resistant, insecure avoidant.

Question 47

Effects of early life on relationships; Bowlby’s internal working model.

Answer 47

• first attachment is a template for future relationships

-secure attachment type; good/healthy relationships.

• insecure avoidant/ resistant attachment type- unhealthy/ toxic relationships.

IWM affects parenting.

Question 48

KEY STUDY- Effects of early life on relationships; Hazan & Shaver (1987), love quiz.

Answer 48

• questions for 605 American’s. (current attachment, attachment history, attitudes towards love)

-56% securely attached, 25% insecure-avoidant & 19% insecure-resistant.

• secure; good & longer-lasting romantic relationships.
  -avoidant; jealous & fears intimacy

Question 49

Effects of early life on relationships; behaviours influenced by the IWM. (parenting & friendships)

Answer 49

CHILDHOOD FRIENDSHIPS
Kerns(1994), securely attached infants form best friendships, insecurely attached have difficult friendships.

PARENTING
Harlow- monkeys deprived of attachment in infancy, unable to parent properly as adults.

Question 50

Evaluation of effects of early life on relationships.

Answer 50

strength; research support. Kerns (1994),securely attached, good childhood friendship but insecurely attached had poor childhood friendships. TMB, it supports Bowlby’s theory (IWM) that the first attachment is used as a template for future relationships. Thus supporting…

limitation; continuity hypo considered overly deterministic. Bowlby claimed that first monotropic attachment formed determines all future relationships. TMB, is example of psychic determinism & doesn’t take into account free will, the ability to make own decisions and change future outcomes, regardless of early life experiences. Limiting validity.

limitation; difficult to determine causation. Hazan & Shaver, found pos correlations between primary attachment and future relationships. TMB, it does not provide casual explanations for behaviour, difficult to determine what is the cause. Limits validity.

limitation; issues with validity. Hazan & Shaver, interviewed ptps to determine childhood attachment types. TMB, attachment types not measured in a valid way as not using strange situation test (known valid measurement). Relies on retrospective data which lacks reliability & validity. Thus limiting the research.