Attachment

Question 1

What is attachment?

Answer 1

-2 way emotional bond that forms between 2 individuals, in which individual sees other as essential for emotional security + development

Question 2

Different types of attachment

Answer 2

-secure attachment= distressed upon separation but warmly welcome caregiver back via eye contact and hugs
-anxious resistant attachment= child frightened by separation and continues to display anxious behaviour when caregiver returns
-avoidant attachment= child reacts fairly calm to separation and doesn’t embrace them upon return
-disorganised attachment= odd behaviour towards caregiver upon return i.e hitting (result of childhood trauma)

Question 3

How is attachment displayed?

Answer 3

displayed by:
-proximity(physically close to attachment figures)
-separation distress(signs of anxiety when attachment figure leaves)
-secure base behaviour(regular contact even when independent i.e coming back to caregiver while playing)
-reunion behaviour(i.e baby happy to see primary caregiver if separated)

Question 4

Caregiver-infant interactions

Answer 4

-interactions have important functions for the child’s social development i.e good quality social interactions associated with successful attachment developments

Question 5

Reciprocity

Answer 5

-caregiver infant interactions is a 2 way process where each party responds to the other one’s signals(turn-taking)
-behaviour of each person elicits a response from the other i.e smiling at a baby so they smile back

Question 6

Alert phases

Answer 6

-babies have these periodic phases in which they signal to primary caregiver they’re ready for interaction
-Feldman and Edelman(2007) found that mothers typically pick up on this signal and respond 2/3 of the time
-from around 3 months, it becomes more frequent and baby and mother paying close attention to verbal signals + facial expressions

Question 7

Active involvement

Answer 7

-babies as well as caregivers have an active role—} both crgver and baby can initiate interactions and appear to be taking turns with it
Brazelton et al(1975) described it as a ‘dance’

Question 8

Interactional synchrony

Answer 8

-mother and infant reflect actions and emotions of other in a co-ordinated, synchronised way(mirroring perfectly in time)
‘temporal co-ordination of micro-level social behaviour’ Feldman 2007

Question 9

Meltzoff and Moore(1977): Interactional synchrony

Answer 9

-aim: to observe the interactional synchrony between infants& caregivers
-procedure: controlled observation of babies as young as 2 weeks old.
exposed babies to 4 stimuli( 3 facial gestures e.g sticking our tongue, 1 manual gesture e.g waving).
the babies responses were observed &filmed and then an independent observer was asked to note all instances of sticking out tongue and head movements with behaviour categories. Each scored tape twice(intra observer, inter rater reliability)
Findings: babies 12 to 27 days old could imitate both facial expression and manual gestures.
Conclusion: ability to imitate serves as a building block for layer development+ attachment formations

Question 10

Importance of interactional synchrony: Isabella et al(1989)

Answer 10

important for the development of caregiver-infant attachment
-Isabella et al observed 30 mothers and babies together and assessed the degree of synchrony. Also assessed the quality of attachment= found high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-baby attachment

Question 11

Evaluating caregiver-infant interactions:
Filmed observation :)

Answer 11

-well controlled procedures with mother and infant being filmed from several angles= details can be recorded and later analysed
-babies don’t know they’re being observed so behaviour doesn’t change(internal validity)
-can establish inter-rater reliability

Question 12

Evaluating caregiver-infant interactions:
Difficulty observing babies :(

Answer 12

-babies lack co-ordination and are mostly immobile so small movements are hard to interpret
-can’t determine what’s taking place from the baby’s perspective i.e cannot know whether they are twitching or triggered by something caregiver has done
-hard to establish cause and effect(internal validity)

Question 13

Evaluating caregiver-infant interactions:
Developmental importance :(

Answer 13

-simply observing don’t tell us the purpose of synchrony + reciprocity
- Feldman (2012) suggests that these processes just give names to patterns of observable behaviours
-cannot be certain from observational research alone that reciprocity and synchrony are important for child development

Question 14

Evaluating caregiver-infant interactions: practical value:)- ethics :(

Answer 14

-reaearch has given practical application into parent skills i.e Crotwell et al(2013) found that a 10 min Parent-Child Interaction Therapy improved interactional synchrony in 20 low income mothers and their preschool children
HOWEVER research is socially sensitive because it suggests mothers returning back to work damage baby’s development

Question 15

The role of the father-
compared to mothers(schaffer and emerson)

Answer 15

-evidence suggests fathers are much less likely to become babies’ first attachment figure compared to mothers
-Schaffer and Emerson(1964) found that babies attached to their mothers first, around 7 months + secondary attachments later
-only 3% of cases the father was the joint primary attachment figure whereas 75% developed secondary attachment figures(age of 18 months) —} babies protested when their fathers walked away

Question 16

The role of the father- study by Grossman(2002) longitudinal study

Answer 16

-role of the father was often left out of psychological research until recently
-Grossman(2002) carried out a longitudinal study looking at BOTH parents’ behaviour and its relationship to child’s attachment to others through to teens.
-found that the quality of a baby’s attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to attachments in adolescence —} suggests that fathers have a less important attachment than mothers

Question 17

What is a longitudinal study? (strength + weakness)

Answer 17

-A study that is done over a long period of time
:) we can see trends and changes in data
:( may be hard to concise data and there may be logistical issues

Question 18

The role of the father- Grossman on quality of attachment

Answer 18

-quality of fathers’ play with infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments—} fathers have a different role from the mothers, more to do with play and simulation, and less to do with emotional development

Question 19

Fathers as primary attachment figures

Answer 19

-has been further research to suggest that when fathers do take on role of primary caregiver they adopt the emotional role typically associated with mothers
-Field(1978) filmed 4 month-old babies in face to face interaction with primary mothers, primary fathers and secondary fathers
-found that the primary caregiver fathers, like primary caregiver mothers, spent more time smiling, imitating and holding babies than secondary(reciprocity+interactional synchrony)
-shows that fathers have the potential to be the more emotion-focused primary figure but perhaps only express this when have a primary role

Question 20

Heteronormativity

Answer 20

-line of research focusing on role of the father is based on opposite gender parent idea
-BUT no suggestion from respectable psychologists that having a single parent or same gender parent has negative impact on development (McCallum and Golombot 2004)

Question 21

Evaluating the role of the father-
inconsistent findings

Answer 21

-lack of clarity over what exactly is the role of the father
-some researchers want to understand it from a secondary figure perspective(Grossman) and others from a primary one
-fathers have a distinct role vs fathers can take on a ‘maternal’ role
-makes it difficult to prove a simple answer

Question 22

Evaluating the role of the father-
conflicting evidence

Answer 22

-findings vary according to the methodology used—} Grossman et al have suggested that fathers have a distinct role in their children’s development BUT that contradicts the idea that children growing up in same-sex or single parent households don’t turn out different than traditional families(McCallum and Golombok)
HOWEVER conflicts could be just that same sex or single mothers typically fill the distinct role of the fathers so families can adapt to missing role

Question 23

Evaluating the role of the father-
Real world application

Answer 23

-can be used to offer advice to parents= they sometimes agonise over decisions like who should take on the primary caregiver role + even whether to have children at home
-Mothers may feel pressured to stay home and fathers may be pressured to focus on work than parenting
-research to offer reassuring advice to parents i.e suggesting fathers CAN be primary attachment figures and same sex/ single parents won’t affect development
-parental anxiety reduced

Question 24

Evaluating the role of the father-
Bias in this research

Answer 24

-preconceptions about how fathers do or should behave can be created by stereotypical accounts and images of parenting roles and behaviours
-may cause unintentional observer bias whereas observers ‘see’ what they expect to see rather than recording objective reality

Question 25

Stages of attachment - Schaffer and Emerson(1964) (AP)

Answer 25

Aim: to study the attachment behaviours of babies by assessing anxiety
Procedure: -in a longitudinal study they followed 60 infants from a mainly working class area of Glasgow over a 2 year period. Infants observed every 4 weeks until 1 year old then again at 18 months (5 weeks was youngest and 23 weeks was oldest)
-measured attachment with separation anxiety(7 conditions i.e left alone in room, left in pram outside shops) and stranger anxiety(every visit, the researcher would approach the infant and note at what point they show signs of anxiety)

Question 26

Stages of attachment- Schaffer and Emerson(1964) (FC)

Answer 26

Findings: -50% showed their specific attachment between 25 and 32 weeks
-attachment tended to be caregiver who was most responsive to child’s signals+expressions(reciprocity)
-by 10 months, 30% had multiple attachments
Conclusions: could identify 4 distinct stages in the development of infant attachment behaviour

Question 27

Schaffer and Emerson’s 4 stages of attachment

Question 28

Asocial stage

Answer 28

-0 to 2 months
-observable behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects is fairly similar
-even at this stage babies show signs that they prefer to be with other people + show preference for company of familiar people by being easily comforted by them
-bonds form basis of later attachment

Question 29

Indiscriminate attachment

Answer 29

-0 to 7 months
-more obvious and observable social behaviours
-clear preference of humans over objects
-recognise and prefer company of familiar people
-accept cuddles + comfort from anyone= ‘indiscriminate’
-don’t usually show separation/ stranger anxiety

Question 30

Specific attachment

Answer 30

-7+ months
- classic signs of attachment towards one particular person i.e anxieties
-from the primary attachment figure
-Schaffer and Emerson found that primary is more to do with reciprocity
-this is the mother 65% of cases

Question 31

Multiple attachments

Answer 31

(shortly after a specific attachment is formed)
-extend attachment behaviour to others that they spend their time with(secondary)
-Schaffer and Emerson found that 29% of the children formed secondary within a month of forming primary + formed multiple attachments by the age of 1

Question 32

Evaluating Schaffer’s stages of attachment-
Good external validity

Answer 32

-most of the observations( though not stranger anxiety) were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to the present to record observations
-means it is highly likely the ppts behaved naturally while being observed
HOWEVER asking mothers to be ‘observers’ makes it less likely to be objective. Biases in terms of what they notice and report i.e showing signs of anxiety, so behaviour may not have been accurately recorded

Question 33

Evaluating Schaffer’s stages of attachment-
Poor evidence for the asocial stage

Answer 33

-young babies have poor co ordination and are immobile which makes it difficult to make judgements from observations of their behaviour
-doesn’t mean that a child’s feelings + cognitions are not highly social but we have no evidence to rely on
-weak validity of measures they used to assess attachment in the asocial stage

Question 34

Evaluating Schaffer’s stages of attachment-
Real world application

Answer 34

-in the asocial + indiscriminate attachment stages, daycare is likely to be straightforward as babies can be comforted by any skilled adult
-however, starting daycare with an unfamiliar adult may be problematic during the specific attachment stage
-useful because parents can plan best time for daycare + how and why babies will get distressed

Question 35

Evaluating Schaffer’s stages of attachment-
Conflicting evidence on multiple attachments

Answer 35

-Bowlby(1969) supports Schaffer and Emerson as he too found that infants form primary attachments and then secondary attachments after
HOWEVER Van Ljzendoom et al(1993) found that in collectivist cultures where babies are raised by multiple people, babies form multiple attachments from the outset(cultural bias)

Question 36

What is imprinting?

Answer 36

-a critical period of time in an animal’s life when it forms attachments with the first moving object it sees
-Birds + mammals are born with a pre programmed innate drive to imprint onto their mother
(Lorenz found that bird species imprint to first moving object they see and follow it around)

Question 37

Animal studies

Answer 37

-studies carried out on animal species rather than on humans, either for ethical or practical reasons(breed faster so results can be observed across more than one gen of animals)

Question 38

Lorenz’s research(1952) (AP)

Answer 38

Aim: to observe the phenomenon of imprinting
Procedure: -set up experiment by randomly divided up goose eggs into 2 groups
-half the eggs were hatched with their mother in natural environment(control group)
-other half were hatched in an incubator + Lorenz was the first moving thing they saw( independent measures)

Question 39

Lorenz’s research(1952) (FC)

Answer 39

Findings: -incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere(imprinted on him) whereas the control group followed their mother
-mixed them up by placing a big box over both groups together + lifted the box and began walking away—} control group followed the mother and experimental group followed Lorenz
Conclusions: identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place(can be as brief as a few hours) otherwise they won’t attach to a mother figure

Question 40

Sexual imprinting

Answer 40

-Lorenz investigated the relationship between imprinting and adult male preferences which would have a life-long impact—} i.engosling imprints on human

Question 41

Evaluating Lorenz’s study- imprinting is not permanent

Answer 41

-Guiton et al(1966) suggested that impact of imprinting on mating behaviour is not as permanent as Lorenz suggested
-found that chickens imprinted on yellow gloves + did try to mate with the glove BUT they eventually started to mate with other children

Question 42

Evaluating Lorenz’s study- lack of generalisability

Answer 42

-human attachement is a two way process between mother and baby but that is not equally applicable to apply Lorenz’s ideas to humans
-may lack external validity as theory is not widely applicable across different species and could be more of an animal trait than a rep of general attachment

Question 43

Evaluating Lorenz’s study-
supporting research

Answer 43

-Regolin& Vallortigara(1995) conducted a study where chicks were exposed to shape combinations that moved, and when they were exposed to a range of shape combos, they followed to original most closely
-supports view that young animals are born with innate mechanism to imprint on moving object in a critical window
-increases reliability

Question 44

Harlow’s research(1958): (AP)

Answer 44

Aim: to investigate what factors were important for attachment in Rhesus monkeys
Procedure: -Harlow tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions as a mother by rearing 16 baby monkeys with 2 model mothers, one covered with cloth, one just metal(in one condition milk was dispensed from the plain wire model)
-observed the monkeys and measured the amount of time each monkey spent on each surrogate mother + compared these to see which mother they see attached to
-scared the monkeys by banging on cages + scaring with robots etc, then observed which mother they sought comfort from in another condition

Question 45

Harlow’s research (1958): (FC)

Answer 45

-FINDINGS:the baby monkeys cuddled the cloth covered mother in preference to the plain wire + sought comfort from the cloth one when frightened regardless of which mother dispensed milk
-CONCLUSION: contact comfort was more important to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour

Question 46

Maternal deprivation in adult monkeys

Answer 46

-Harlow et al followed the monkeys who had been deprived of a ‘real’ mother into adulthood to see if maternal deprivation had a permanent effect
-monkeys reared with plain wire mothers were the most dysfunctional—} more aggressive and less sociable, unskilled at mating, neglecting and even killed young

Question 47

Critical period for normal development

Answer 47

-Harlow concluded that there was a critical period for attachment formation= a mother figure had to be introduced to a young monkey within 90 DAYS for attachment to form
-otherwise attachment was impossible and damage done by early deprivation became irreversible

Question 48

Evaluating Harlow’s research- contemporary application

Answer 48

-in Japan and South Korea robots are designed to carry out childcare
-Sharkey and Sharkey(2010) have examined the implications of what might happen to child development if children are raised by inanimate objects
-Harlow’s research can be used to suggest it may enhance dysfunctional relationships as they don’t have a secure primary source of care

Question 49

Evaluating Harlow’s research- cannot he fully generalised to humans

Answer 49

-Rhesus monkeys do share similarities with humans in terms of attachment behaviours, being mammals BUT the human brain and behaviour is still more complex than that of monkeys

Question 50

Evaluating Harlow’s research- Ethical issues

Answer 50

-Harlow’s research caused severe and long term distress to the monkeys.
-after his research, the monkeys were left permanently scarred, losing mating and maternal skills completely
However, his findings and conclusions have important theoretical and practical applications

Question 51

Learning theory of attachment

Answer 51

-theories from the behaviourist approach
-‘cupboard love’= proposed that children learn to love whoever feeds them, attachment figure is seen as provider of food

Question 52

Classical conditioning

Answer 52

-child learns to associate the career with food
-food is an unconditioned stimulus that triggers unconditioned response of pleasure
-at the start, the carer is a neutral stimulus(produces no response) but when they feed the child they become associated with the UCS food
-over time, they become a conditioned stimulus and trigger conditioned response of pleasure—> become an attachment figure

Question 53

Operant conditioning

Answer 53

-learning through consequences
-if a behaviour results in a pleasant consequence then it is likely to be repeated(reinforced) but if a behaviour produces an unpleasant consequence it is less likely to be repeated
-if crying leads to pleasant consequences i.e feeding then behaviour is reinforced
two way process:
-caregiver receives negative reinforcement when baby stops crying, encouraging them to continue action
-receives positive reinforcement when baby smiles from their actions
-this strengthens attachment

Question 54

Attachment asa secondary drive

Answer 54

drive reduction
-hunger is thought of as a primary drive(innate biological motivator) so we eat to reduce the hunger drive
-Sears et al(1957) suggests that because caregivers provide food the hunger drive becomes generalised to them —> forms attachment as secondary drive(learned association between caregiver and satisfying primary drive)

Question 55

Evaluating the learning theory explanation of attachment:
:( counter evidence from animal studies

Answer 55

-i.e Lorenz’s geese imprinted on first object they saw regardless of association with food which shows attachment may be an interaction in tune with biological drives rather than something learned
-Harlow’s monkeys displayed attachment to soft surrogate mother in preference to wire one with milk because they preferred comfort
-may be other factors, incomplete explanation

Question 56

Evaluating the learning theory explanation of attachment:
:( lack of support from human studies

Answer 56

-Schaffer and Emerson(1964) found that babies tend to form main attachment to mother regardless of if she usually fed them
-Isabella et al(1989) found that high levels of interactional synchrony predicted attachment quality
-suggests food is not the main factor in the formation of HUMAN attachmenta

Question 57

Evaluating the learning theory explanation of attachment:
:) elements of conditioning could be involved in attachment

Answer 57

-may not play main role with food but if a baby associates feeling warm and comfortable with a particular adult, it may influence their choice of main attachment figure
-useful in understanding multiple attachments HOWEVER conditioning explanations suggest babies play a passive role and simply associate but research shows babies take a more active role in interactions that produce attachment
-not adequate for any aspect of attachment

Question 58

Evaluating the learning theory explanation of attachment: :) social learning theory

Answer 58

-has links with social learning theory which is based more around 2 way interactions and reciprocity
-Hay and Vespo(1988) suggest parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviours i.e hugging and can reinforce loving behaviours by showing approval when babies display attachment behaviours

Question 59

Bowlby on the learning theory

Answer 59

-rejected learning theory: “were it true, an infant of a year or two should take readily to whomever feeds him and this is clearly not the case”
-instead he based his work on Lorenz and Harlow’s studies and came up with the monotropic theory

Question 60

Evolutionary explanation

Answer 60

-attachment is an innate system that gives a survival advantage
-evolved as a mechanism to keep young animals safe by ensuring they stay close to adult caregivers
-involves the use of social releasers to ensure they are cared for to survive

Question 61

Social releasers

Answer 61

-babies are born with a set of innate ‘cute’ behaviour like smiling in order to activate adult social interaction and make adult attach to baby
-attachment is a 2 way process as baby and mother both have innate predispositions to attach and social releasers trigger this

Question 62

Monotropy

Answer 62

-placed emphasis on child’s attachment to one particular caregiver who is different and more important than others—> ‘mother figure’
-primary caregiver attachment based on care and meeting child’s needs
- law of continuity= the more constant and predictable care is, the better quality the attachment
- law of accumulated separation= effects of every separation will add up and “the safest dose is therefore zero”(Bowlby)

Question 63

Critical period

Answer 63

-from around 6 months to 2 years old
-the time when attachment must be formed / infant’s attachment system is active
-Bowlby argued that the critical age period was the most essential period and after this, attachment won’t be formed in the same way and it will be harder to form one

Question 64

Internal working model

Answer 64

-children form a mental representation(schema) of their relationship with their primary attachment figure
-serves as a model for what relationships are like
-has a powerful effect on the child’s further relationships as they form an expectation of what it should look like(continuity hypothesis- similar attachments continue through life)
-i.e people parent based off how they were parented + children from functional families tend to have similar families themselves

Question 65

Evaluating Bowlby’s theory explanation of attachment:
:( monotropy concept lacks validity

Answer 65

-Schaffer and Emerson(1964) found that although most babies did attach to one person at first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time
-although first attachment appears to have a strong influence on later behaviour, it may not be different in quality from the child’s other attachments i.e emotional support
-weak evidence to back up a unique quality and importance to primary attachment

Question 66

Evaluating the learning theory explanation of attachment:
:) supporting evidence for social releasers

Answer 66

-clear evidence that cute baby behaviours are designed to elicit interaction from caregivers
-Brazelton et al(1975) observed babies trigger interaction either adults using social releasers then instructed the babies’ primary attachment figures to ignore the social releasers
-babies became increasingly distressed and some curled up and lay motionless
-illustrates role of social releasers in emotional development and suggests they are important in process of attachment development

Question 67

Evaluating the learning theory explanation of attachment:
:) Support for internal working model

Answer 67

-idea predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed from one gen to the next
-Bailey et al(2007) assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and 1 years old babies
-measured the mothers own attachment to their own primary attachment figures and attachment qualities of the babies
-found that mothers with poor attachment to their own primary attachment figures were more likely to have poorly attached babies
-supports Bowlby’s idea that mothers’ ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their internal working models(comes from their own early attachment experiences)
HOWEVER probably other influences on social development i.e genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect parenting abilities and have affect in babies
-Bowlby may have overstated the importance of the internal working model in social behaviour and parenting at the expense of other factors

Question 68

Evaluating the learning theory explanation of attachment:
:( Femenist concerns

Answer 68

-laws of continuity and accumulated separation suggests mothers who work may negatively affect child’s emotional development
-Burman(1994) point out that this belief sets up mothers to take the blame for anything that goes for the child in the future
-gives people an excuse to restrict mother’s activities i.e working

Question 69

Evaluating the learning theory explanation of attachment:
:) Supporting research: Harlow and Harlow

Answer 69

-Rhesus monkeys seemed to attach to a comforting caregiver, suggesting that sensitive responsiveness underlies attachment
-monotropy emphasises importance of a close relationship compared to learning theory which focuses on stimulus response
-the reason these monkeys neglected their offspring was because they didn’t experience a proper caregiver + had developed faulty internal WMs

Question 70

What was the ‘Strange Situation’ and what was its aim?

Answer 70

-used by Ainsworth + Bell(1970) to assess the quality of attachment to a caregiver
-controlled observation about key attachment behaviours done in a lab with a 2 way mirror/ cameras where child + mother interactions were observed in 8 scenarios

Question 71

What were the behaviours used to judge attachment?

Answer 71

• Proximity-seeking= baby with a good quality attachment would want to stay close to caregiver
• Exploration&secure-base behaviour= baby would feel confident enough to explore but use their caregiver as a secure base to return to
• Stranger anxiety= baby with close attachment displays signs of anxiety when a stranger approaches
• Separation anxiety= baby will protest at separation from the caregiver
• Response to reunion= securely attached babies will greet caregiver’s return with pleasure and comfort

Question 72

Findings of ‘Strange Situation’

Answer 72

-Ainsworth found 3 attachment types:
- Anxious/insecure avoidant(type A)
- Secure attachment(type B for balance)
- Anxious resistant(type C for clingy)
(Disorganised/type D added later)

Question 73

Strange situation procedure

Answer 73

(7 episodes lasting each around 3 mins)
-The caregiver and baby enter an unfamiliar playroom
1) Caregiver encourages baby to explore(exploration/secure base)
2) Stranger enters, talks to caregiver and approaches baby(stranger anxiety)
3) Caregiver leaves baby and stranger together(separation+ stranger anxiety)
4) Caregiver returns and stranger leaves(reunion+exploration/secure base)
5) Caregiver leaves so baby is alone(separation anxiety)
6) Stranger returns(stranger anxiety)
7) Caregiver returns and is reunited with baby(reunion behaviour)

Question 74

Anxious/insecure avoidant- type A

Answer 74

-babies explore freely but don’t seek proximity or show secure base behaviour
-show little to no reaction when caregiver leaves and little stranger anxiety
-little effort to make contact with caregiver upon return and may avoid contact
20-25% British babies

Question 75

Secure attachment- type B

Answer 75

-babies explore happily but regularly go back to caregiver(proximity and secure base behaviour)
-moderate separation distress & stranger anxiety
-require and accept comfort in reunion stage
60-75% British babies

Question 76

Anxious/insecure resistant- type C

Answer 76

-babies seek greater proximity than others and explore less
-high levels of stranger and separation anxiety
-resist comfort from caregiver in reunion stage
around 3% of British babies

Question 77

How do these behaviours manifest in later life?

Answer 77

-Type A= find it hard to get into relationships, trust issues and like to be fully independent
- Type B= easier to get close to, trusting in relationships and happy
- Type C= usually seek relationships but may feel undeserving of love, clingy, obsessive and jealous

Question 78

Evaluation of the Strange situation

good predictive validity :)

Answer 78

-outcome predicts various aspects of later development
-lots of research to show type B tend to have better outcomes in child + adulthood i.e better achievement in school and less involvement in bullying(McCormick et al 2016, Kokkinos 2007)
-also tend to have better mental health in adulthood(Ward et al 2006)
-Type C and outliers usually have worst outcomes
HOWEVER some psychologists argue that the Strange Situation does not measure attachment and its impact, instead genetically influenced anxiety-levels(Kagan 1982), reduces face validity

Question 79

Evaluation of the Strange situation

good inter-rater reliability :)

Answer 79

(agreement between 2 or more observers)
-Bick et al (2012) tested this and trained observers achieved over 90% agreement on judging attachment types
-controlled conditions and categorised behaviour i.e stranger anxiety helps achieve this

Question 80

Evaluation of the Strange situation

may be culture-bound :(

Answer 80

-may not be valid measure of attachment in different cultural contexts as it was developed in Britain and US
-babies may have different experiences in different cultures that affect responses
-i.e Japanese study by Takahashi(1990) suggests high separation anxiety response was more about less separation between mother and baby than type C
-hard to understand what SS is measuring out of GB/US context

Question 81

Evaluation of the Strange situation

other attachment types :(

Answer 81

-Main and Solomon(1966) found a 4th attachment type: Disorganised attachment(type D)
-mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours
-shows Ainsworth’s categorisation is incomplete and it may not be accurate account of all attachment behaviours
HOWEVER type D is unusual and have normally experienced abuse/neglect, most will go on to develop psychological disorders by childhood

Question 82

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg’s research(1988)

Answer 82

-conducted a meta analysis of many ‘strange situations’ to look at proportions of attachment styles to assess cultural variation
- inter culture(between different cultures)
- intra culture(within the same culture)

Question 83

Cross cultural studies(Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg) - Aim and Procedure

Answer 83

-Aim: to investigate the reported
rates of different infant
attachment types in a range of
cultures
-Procedure: -32 strange situations across 8 countries(15 in the USA)
-overall results for 1900 children
-all studies ONLY observed mother-infant pairs and classified attachment into type A/B/C
- excluded:
-children with special needs
-studies with less than 25 mother-infant pairs
-studies using children older than 2

Question 84

Cross cultural studies(Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg) - Findings

Answer 84

-wide variation in proportion of attachment types in different studies
-secure attachment was the most common but ranged a lot(75% in Britain to 50% in China)
-individualist cultures had similar type C proportions to Ainsworth’s study
-collectivist cultures were much higher(25% in Israel, Japan etc) and had lower type A
-variations between results of studies
WITHIN the same country were 150% greater than those BETWEEN countries.
E.g. in USA, one study found 46% Type B & in another USA study found 90% Type В.

Question 85

Cultural variation: Simonelli et al 2014 (Italy)

Answer 85

-assessed 76 babies aged 12 months using Strange Situation
-found 50% secure, 36% insecure-avoidant
-lower rate of secure and higher rates of insecure-avoidant
-researchers suggest this is because mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional childcare

Question 86

Cultural variation: Sagi et al 1985 (Israel)

Answer 86

-Collectivist cultures like Israel have higher rates of Type C.
-they tend to live in a Kibbutz (communal living space).
-child rearing shared by adults & sleep in dorms & barely see parents.
-the become familiar with those around them who they normall encounter.
-means they feel extreme stranger anxiety & may reject parent upon return due to lack of connection

Question 87

Cultural variation: Jin et al 2012(Korea)

Answer 87

-assessed 87 babies
-overall proportions were similar to most countries & most babies were secure.
-however, most of those classified as insecurely attached were resistant & only one baby was avoidant.
-this is similar to the distribution of attachment types in Japan
Since Japan & Korea have similar child-rearing styles, this similarity may be explained in terms of child-rearing style

Question 88

Conclusions drawn from cultural variation

Answer 88

-secure attachment seems to be the norm—> supports Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate + universal
-BUT cultural practices have an influence on attachment type

Question 89

Evaluating cultural variations in attachment: Indigenous researchers

Answer 89

researchers who are those from the same cultural background as the ppts
-i.e Grossman & Takahashi who is German & Japanese
-miscommunication and misunderstanding can be avoided and less bias due to stereotypes
-internal validity
CP: Morelli and Tronick(1991) were Americans who studied patterns of attachment in Efe of Zaire

Question 90

Evaluating cultural variations in attachment: Confounding variables

Answer 90

-studies aren’t usually matched for methodology in a meta analysis so there is a risk of confounding variables i.e sample characteristics= poverty, class
-Environmental variables can differ studies (availability of interesting toys)
-Less visible proximity-seeming because of room size might make a child more likely to be classified as avoidant
-differences found may not be due to cross-cultural patterns of attachment

Question 91

Evaluating cultural variations in attachment: Ethnocentrism

Answer 91

-Japanese infants showed high levels of distress which was interpreted as insecure attachment
-BUT it may just be because in collectivist cultures, mothers stay at home with the baby so its needs are always met
-method used in SS & measures of attachment may only measure American children

Question 92

Evaluating cultural variations of attachment: Large sample

Answer 92

-Nearly 2000 babies & mother analysed
-Increases internal validity in meta-analyses by reducing the impact of anomalous results

Question 93

What is Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation(1953)?

Answer 93

-emotional/intellectual consequences of separation between a child & their mother
-‘mother-love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as vitamins and proteins are for physical health’

Question 94

Separation/Deprivation/
Privation

Answer 94

Separation: temporary short period of separation between the caregiver & the infant.
Deprivation: infant & caregiver are separated for a longer period of time, the bond that’s been formed is broken & an element of care is taken away.
Privation: a child has never been able to form attachments.

Question 95

3 progressive stages of distress

Answer 95

-Bowlby & Robertson (1952) observed children experienced intense distress when separated:
- Protest= child cries/screams when the parent leaves and tries to cling on to them to stop them leaving
- Despair= protesting stops + they appear calmer but still upset. refuse other’s comfort and seem withdrawn
- Detachment= child engages with other people. rejects caregiver on return + shows signs of anger

Question 96

The critical period

Answer 96

-said originally that if a child does not form an attachment before age 2 & 1/2, then an attachment would never occur.
-Proposed a sensitive period (attachment can still form but it takes longer), up to 5 years
-if separation occurs without substitute care, leaving child deprived of emotional care then psychological damage will be inevitable

Question 97

Effect on Intellectual development & Goldfarb

Answer 97

-Believed if a child experienced MD for too long in the critical period, they would experience delayed intellectual development, through abnormally low IQ.
-Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQ in children who remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered & thus had a higher standard of emotional care

Question 98

MD’s effect on emotional development

Answer 98

-deprivation during critical period affected emotional development
-Bowlby identified affection-less psychopathology as the inability to experience guilt/empathy or strong emotions for others.
-it is associated with criminality as they cannot appreciate the feelings of the victim & feel no remorse for actions

Question 99

Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944) - Aim + Procedure

Answer 99

-wanted to examine the link between MD+ affectionless psychopathology
-PROCEDURE: -interviewed 44 teens referred to child protection program due to accusation of theft and 44 non-criminal but emotionally-disturbed teens(control grp)
-questioned for signs of affectionless psychopathology i.e lack of guilt/empathy
-families also interviewed to state whether they had faced separation in critical period + for how long

Question 100

Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944) - findings + conclusion

Answer 100

-more than half the juveniles had been separated from mothers for longer than 6 months during first 5 years of life but only 2 ppts in control group
-32% of the thieves showed ‘affection less psychopathology’ compared to none of the control group
-later, he reported that 60 children who spent time apart from mothers in a tuberculosis sanatorium before age 4, had lower achievement in school
-concluded that the reason for the anti-social behaviour & emotional problems in the first group was due to MD

Question 101

Evaluating Bowlby’s theory of Maternal Deprivation: flawed evidence

Answer 101

-Bowlby conducted interviews with family + assessments for affectionless psychopathy
-bias because he already knew the results teens he predicted for the teens
-used Goldfarb’s study on deprivation in wartime orphanages as inspiration= existing confounding variables i.e existing trauma
-low reliability
CP: some supporting evidence for long-term effects of MD-} Levy et al 2003 showed that separating baby rats from mums even for a day had effect on social development

Question 102

Evaluating Bowlby’s theory of Maternal Deprivation: confusion between deprivation + privation

Answer 102

-Rutter(1981) drew important distinction= D is loss of primary attachment figure after attachment has formed but P is the lack of any attachments formed
-severe long-term effects of deprivation are actually result of privation–} early life disruption may have hindered strong attachments forming

Question 103

Evaluating Bowlby’s theory of Maternal Deprivation: lack of clarity on critical period

Answer 103

-evidence that suggests good quality aftercare can prevent damage formed in critical period
-Koluchova(1976) reported on Czech twins who experienced very severe physical + emotional abuse from 18 months to 7 years old–} received excellent aftercare and fully recovered by teens
-‘sensitive period’ is more fitting than critical period

Question 104

Evaluating Bowlby’s theory of Maternal Deprivation: conflicting evidence

Answer 104

-Hilda Lewis(1954) looked at 500 young people and found no association between early separation and later affectionless psychopathology
(criminality or relationship difficulties)

Question 105

What is institutionalisation?

Answer 105

-the effect of living in an institutionalised setting
-it refers to a place where children live for a long period of time with often little emotional care provided

Question 106

What were romanian orphanages like and why were they founded?

Answer 106

-lacked both medicines and washing facilities
-children exposed to physical and sexual abuse
-rain would often come through the roof
-founded in the 90s because president Nicolai required Romanian women to have 5 children but many parents couldn’t afford to care for them

Question 107

Rutter et al(2011)
AP

Answer 107

AIM: understand the long term impacts of institutionalisation
PROCEDURE: -followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans who spent their early lives in Romanian institutions + suffered early effects of institutionalisation
-ERA assessed the physical, emotional and cognitive development has been assessed at ages 4, 6, 11, 15 and 22-25 years

Question 108

Rutter et al (2011)
FC

Answer 108

Findings: -Romanian orphans lagged behind British counterparts on all measures
-by the age of 4, children adopted before 6 months had caught up and were able to form specific attachments
-by age 11, mean IQ of children adopted after 2 years was the lowest in comparison to 6 months
-after 6 months, they showed signs of disinhibited attachment whereas those adopted before 6 months rarely displayed this attachment type
Conclusion: -long term consequences may be less severe IF children have the opportunity to form attachments

Question 109

Zeneah et al(2005)
AP

Answer 109

Aim: assess the affect of institutionalisation on attachment
Procedure: -conducted Bucharest early intervention(BEI) project, assessing attachment in 95 romanian orphans who spent 12-31 months in institutions compared to ctrl group of 50 children
-assessed using the strange situation AND interviewed caregivers about ‘unusual’ social behaviour i.e clingy/attention seeking directed inappropriately to ALL adults

Question 110

Zeneah et al(2005)
FC

Answer 110

Findings: - 19% institutionalised group showed secure attachment vs 74% control group
- 44% showed disinhibited attachment vs less than 20% control group
Conclusion: institutionalisation has a negative impact on attachment formation

Question 111

Effects of institutionalisation:
Disinhibited attachment

Answer 111

-equally friendly and affectionate towards familiar people AND strangers
-less stranger anxiety
-Rutter(2006) described it as an adaptation to having multiple caregivers during sensitive period

Question 112

Effects of institutionalisation:
Intellectual disability

Answer 112

-most children showed lower IQ when they first arrived in GB(evidence from his study) BUT if adopted by 6 months, they caught up by around 4 years old
-can be recovered
-Rutter(2020) published research claiming that the right inferior frontal gyrus was smaller in Romanian orphans at age 21(important for auditory and visual processing)
-every extra year of institutionalisation= an extra 3cm cubed reduction in size

Question 113

Evaluating institutionalisation:

:) Real world application

Answer 113

-improved understanding of effects of early inst. care and how to prevent worse effects(Langton 2006)
-improved conditions for children in the care system i.e smaller number of children per care home, one or two ‘key workers’ who play a central role in emotional care, bigger push for adoption/foster care

Question 114

Evaluating institutionalisation:

:) lack of confounding variables

Answer 114

-previous orphans who were studied had varying degrees of trauma i.e physical abuse/ bereavement
-Romanian orphans mostly had a similar story of being given up by families who couldn’t afford to take care of them
HOWEVER this may have introduced different confounding variables—> only measured POOR institutional care and abuse in the care system rather than institutional care per se

Question 115

Evaluating institutionalisation:

:( Lack of adult data

Answer 115

-latest data from the ERA study looked at childhood to early/mid 20s but did not follow them to learn about longer term effects of institutional care
-questions about lifetime prevalence of mental health issues and success in romantic/parental relations unanswered
-longitudinal studies are ongoing which opens possibility of orphans ‘catching up’ to their age mates

Question 116

Evaluating institutionalisation:

:( Socially sensitive

Answer 116

-results show that late adopted children are more likely to have poor developmental outcomes
-parents/teachers would lower expectations of those children and treat them differently —> self fulfilling prophecy

Question 117

Influence of early attachment on later relationships:
IWM

Answer 117

-based on Bowlby’s theory of attachment and continuity hypothesis —> relationship with primary attachment figure acts as a mental framework for childhood and adult relationships
-quality of attachment affects nature of future relationships and how they behave in a relationship i.e secure attachment= functional relationships vice versa

Question 118

Influence of early attachment on later relationships:
Relationships in childhood

Answer 118

-securely attached babies go on to form best quality childhood friendships and vice versa(Kerns 1994)
-in 196 children aged 7-11 in London, secure children were less likely to be involved in bullying in comparison to insecurely attached children(Myron-Wilson and Smith)

Question 119

Influence of early attachment on later relationships:
Romantic relationships in adulthood
AP

Answer 119

Hazan and Shaver(1987) aimed to test how early attachments influenced romantic attachments in
adulthood in order to test the idea of the internal working model
-Published a ‘love quiz’ in a local newspaper in the USA, all closed questions
• 620 people answered (205 men; 415 women)
• Questionnaire established type of relationship with parents and type of
relationship with adults
• Researchers analysed the data to classify past and future relationships into
different attachment types (Type A, B or C)

Question 120

Influence of early attachment on later relationships:
Romantic relationships in adulthood
FC

Answer 120

56% of the sample were secure, 25% insecure avoidant, 19% insure resistant.
• Securely attached children tended to have happy, long-lasting relationships
•insecure-avoidants in childhood were more likely to doubt that love would
last and showed signs of jealously
• Those classed as insecure-resistant were particularly vulnerable to being lonely
-concluded that there is a correlation between early attachment type and adult relationship(supports continuity hypothesis)

Question 121

Influence of early attachment on later relationships:
Relationships in adulthood as a parent

Answer 121

-tend to base their parenting style on their IWM so attachment types are passed down through the generations
-Bailey et al. (2007) – 99 mothers and their babies – mother and baby
attachments were assessed during the strange situation
➢The mothers’ attachments to their own mothers were assessed using an
adult attachment interview
➢The majority of women had the same attachment type to both their
babies and their mothers

Question 122

Evaluating the influence of early attachment on later relationships:

:) supporting research

Answer 122

-lots of research to conclude that early attachments predicts later attachment and emotional well-being(predictive validity)
-correlation depends on attachment type i.e avoidant has mild disadvantages but type D is strongly associated with mental disorders
HOWEVER there is conflicting evidence from Becker-Stoll et al who conducted a longitudinal study on 43 ppts from 1 year old and by 16 there was no evidence of continuity

Question 123

Evaluating the influence of early attachment on later relationships:

:( Retrospective studies

Answer 123

-lack validity because they most aren’t longitudinal
-interviewing ppts on relationship with parents and attachment style may lead to social desirability and weak internal validity(adult attachment or early attachment?)

Question 124

Evaluating the influence of early attachment on later relationships:
:( confounding variables

Answer 124

-validity problems in studies on early attachment for example could be affected: by parenting style or genetically influenced personality traits
-cannot be sure that it is early attachment directly influencing development

Question 125

Evaluating the influence of early attachment on later relationships:
:( ethical issues

Answer 125

-Clarke + Clarke suggest that the influence of early attachment is probabilistic—> pessimistic & creates self fulfilling prophecy i.e romantic relationships
-but by knowing someone’s attachment status there is an opportunity to intervene and help their development