attachment

Question 1

caregiver - infant interactions

explain what is meant by:

reciprocity
interactional synchrony

Answer 1

reciprocity
- the act of a caregiver and infant responding to each other’s signals and eliciting a response
-include alert phases (baby ready for interaction spell)
-active involvement (baby or caregiver can initiate interaction)

interactional synchrony
-caregiver and baby reflecting the actions/emotions of each other
-do this in a coordinated/synchronised way

Question 2

What did Feldman and Fidelman (2007) say about alert phases?

Answer 2

mothers pick up on 2/3 of alert phases

Question 3

How did Braselton (1975) describe reciprocity?

Answer 3

described the interactions ‘like a dance’

Question 4

evaluate caregiver - infant interactions

Answer 4

+ often done in lab
limits distractions
can be filmed, more than one person watch it, improve inter-rater reliability
can watch multiple times, unlikely to miss key behaviours
baby is unaware they’re being studied

-babies have little control
often immobile and not coordinated
behaviours may be involuntary and not as a result to the caregiver
difficult to see things from the babies perspective

-tells us little about child development
Feldman (2012) acknowledged that reciprocity/synchrony can be observed, unclear whether/how this is important in child development

Question 5

role of the father - attachment to fathers

Answer 5

evidence suggests that fathers are much less likely to become the baby’s first attachment figure

Schaffer and Emerson (1964)- only 3% of fathers were the first sole object of attachment - 70% of mothers were the first sole attachment figures

however, 75% of babies were attached to father by age 18 months

Question 6

the role of the father : distinctive role

Answer 6

Grossman at al (2006) - longitudinal study

studied babies attachment up until teenage years

findings: quality of attachment to mother showed correlation with quality of relationships in adolescence
Less of a correlation with father’s attachment

conclusion: suggests attachment to father is less important

however: quality of play did relate to adolescence relationship so suggests mother and father have distinctive roles

Question 7

role of father: fathers as primary attachment figures

Answer 7

research shows that when fathers are given the role of primary caregiver , they are able to take on emotional role typically associated with mothers

Field (1978)- watched babies interact - (3) primary caregiver mother, primary and secondary caregiver father

findings: primary caregiver fathers more likely to hold/smile/mimic baby
fathers have potential to be emotion focussed primary attachment figure however only express this when given the primary caregiver role

Question 8

evaluate the role of the father

Answer 8

• confusion over research questions
  unclear what is meant when discussing the ‘role’ of the father
  some researchers investigate the role of the father as a primary attachment figure whereas others have tried to understand them as secondary attachment figures

-conflicting evidence
findings vary dependent on methodology used
longitudinal studied (Grossman)- father’s play role is important but evidence also shows children without a father do not develop differently

+real world application
offer advice to parents
mothers may feel pressure to stay home due to stereotypes
research my reassure that fathers are capable of becoming primary attachment figures

Question 9

how does research into the role of the father affect the economy?

Answer 9

makes families more confident that both parents can provide emotional support

may affect working decisions - higher earner continuing to work

higher earner pays higher taxes so gov benefits

Question 10

describe Schaffer’s stages of attachment

Answer 10

1964

1) asocial-0-8 weeks
behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects is similar
slight preference towards familiar faces

2) indiscriminate attachment-2-7 months
clear preference of humans over inanimate objects
preference for familiar person
do not yet show stranger or separation anxiety

3) specific attachment 7-12 months
primary attachment forming
shows separation and stranger anxiety

4) multiple attachment - 1 year onwards
secondary attachments form
show stranger and separation anxiety

Question 11

evaluate the stages of attachment

Answer 11

+real world application
applied in day care settings
can be used to explain a child’s behaviour and by referring to the stages, the parent can decide when is best to impose day care
(day care may seem straightforward in asocial and indiscriminate stage but difficult in specific attachment phase)

+good external validity
observations made by parent so likely baby will respond naturally

-poor evidence for asocial stage
questions of validity
baby is un coordinated and immobile, so may seem asocial - flawed methods

Question 12

animal studies used for attachment

(Lorenz and Harlow)

Answer 12

Lorenz- (1952)
randomly divided goose eggs
1) hatched with mother in natural environment
2)hatched in incubator- Lorenz was the first moving object they saw
imprinting- bird species which are mobile from birth will attach to and follow the first moving object they see
sexual imprinting- relationship between imprinting and adult mate preferences (peacock saw giant tortoise, showed direct courtship behaviour later)

Harlow- (1958)
contact comfort:
monkeys that were left alone when newborns often died even if they had food- usually survived if they had something soft to cuddle
monkeys sought comfort from cloth covered monkey when scared- even when both wire and cloth covered monkey dispensed milk
went to cloth monkey even if it didn’t dispense milk
‘contact comfort’ was more important than food

maternally deprived monkeys as adults:
aggressive and neglected young

critical period:
concluded there was a critical period for attachment formation
a mother figure had to be introduced within 90 days for attachment to form
after this time, attachment was impossible, early deprivation became irreversible

Question 13

evaluate animal studies

Answer 13

Lorenz (1952) - birds
+research support for imprinting
Regolin and Vallortigara (1995)
chick were exposed to a range of shape combinations
when the shape combinations were moved in front of them, they followed the original combination most closely
supports idea that animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object during the critical window of development (as suggested by Lorenz)

-generalisability to humans
mammalian attachment system is much more complex than birds
e.g attachment in mammals is a two way process
can’t generalise Lorenz’s findings of birds to humans

Harlow (1958) (monkeys)
+real world value
social workers and clinical psychologists can better understand that a lack of bonding experience is a risk factor in child development
allows them to intervene to prevent poor outcomes (howe,1998)
means Harlow’s research is not just theoretical, it is also practical

-generalisability to humans
although rhesus monkeys are similar to humans, and share many common attachment behaviours, human behaviour and human attachment are much more complex than that of monkeys
may not be appropriate to generalise Harlow’s findings.

Question 14

explaining attachment - learning theory

Answer 14

Dollard and Miller (1950)

classical conditioning:
learning to associate two stimuli together
caregiver =neutral stimulus
associates to food= unconditioned stimulus
conditioned response developed
food provided, attachment formed

operant conditioning:
learning from consequences
baby cries, positive reinforcement when comforted
works both ways- parent experiences negative reinforcement to avoid crying
caregiver is ‘social suppressor’

attachment as a secondary drive:
primary drive - innate biological motivator
Sears (1975) - caregivers provide food, primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them
attachment is secondary drive learned by association between caregiver and satisfaction of primary drive

Question 15

explaining attachment -learning theory- evaluation

Answer 15

+some conditioning may be involved
baby may associate feeling of being comftable and warm to a particular adult
this may influence choice of attachment figure
means learning theory may still be useful in understanding development of attachment

-counter evidence for animal studies
Lorenz’s geese imprinted on first moving object they saw regardless of if they have food

-counter evidence for human studies
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)- babies tended to form main attachment to mother regardless of if she was the one who mainly fed them \

Question 16

explain Bowlby’s monotropic theory

Answer 16

suggests a child has one particular attachment which is different from all the others and of central importance to the child’s development
more time spent with ‘mother’ (primary attachment figure) the better.
two principles to clarify this:
law of continuity- the more constant and predictable a child’s care , the better quality relationship
law of accumulated separation- the effects of every separation and ‘the safest dose is no dose’ - Bowlby (1973)

babies born with innate set of social releasers (‘cute’ behaviours) which cause interaction
both mother and baby are ‘hardwired’ to become attached
critical period most sensitive at 6 months , can last two years
if attachment not formed, harder to later form one

internal working model:
child forms mental representation of their relationship with their primary attachment figure
this forms the expectation of how all future relationships should be.

Question 17

evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory

Answer 17

+support for social releasers
Brazelton (1975) observed babies trying to trigger interaction using social releasers / researchers instructed primary attachment figure to ignore social releasers , baby became increasingly distressed / shows importance in emotional development

+support for internal working model
Bailey(2007)- 99 mothers and babies age 1
assessed mother baby attachment quality and also attachment of mother to own mother
mothers with poor attachment to own mother more likely to have poorer attachment to baby

-validity challenged
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
although most babies attach to one person at first, some formed multiple attachments
1st attachment has strong influence on lager relationships, it may be stronger but not necessarily different

Question 18

outline strange situation

Answer 18

developed by Ainsworth and Bell (1970) , aimed to observe key attachment behaviour and quality of relationship between mother and baby

(testing exploration/secure base/stranger and separation anxiety/reunion)

procedure:
baby encouraged to explore
stranger enters , talks to caregiver and approaches baby
caregiver leaves stranger and baby alone
caregiver returns , stranger leaves
caregiver leaves baby alone
stranger returns
caregiver returns , reunited with baby

findings:

secure attachment: (type B)
60-75% british babies
explore regularly
moderation stranger/separation anxiety
require and seek comfort on reunion

insecure avoidant attachment (type A)
20-25% British babies
explore freely with no base
little reaction to caregiver leaving
no effort on reunion

insecure resistant attachment (type c)
3% british babies
explore less
high levels of stranger/separation anxiety
resist comfort when reunited

Question 19

strange situation evaluated

Answer 19

+good predictive validity
outcome predicts a number of baby’s later developments
babies assessed as type B (secure) tend to have better outcomes
Ward (2006)- secure attachment babies tend to have better mental health in adulthood
suggests strange situation measures something meaningful in development

+good reliability
good inter rater reliability
Bick et al (2012) tested inter rater reliability and found that 94% agreed on the same attachment type

-culture bound
may not be a valid measure of attachment in different cultural contexts
Takahashi (1986)- babies experiences high levels of separation anxiety due to unusual nature of mother baby separation in Japan

Question 20

outline cultural variations

Answer 20

Ijendoorn and Krooneberg research:
32 studies
strange situation
8 countries
1990 children

findings:
-found variations in proportions of attachment types between countries BUT secure attachment always most common
75% secure in Britain, 50% in China
-found insecure restaurant lower in individualist compared to collectivist counties (14% and 25%)
-variations between studies were 150% greater in same country compared to separate
US -
study 1= 46% secure
study 2= 90% secure

Italian study
Simonelli (2014)
76 babies
50% secure , 36% avoidant
lower as mothers use childcare due to long hours

korean study:
Jin (2012)
87 babies
most who were insecure were reisiant , only one avoidant
secure ; insecryre proportions similar in most countries

Question 21

cultural variations evaluated

Answer 21

+ indigenous researchers
from same cultural background
Ijzendoorn and Krooneberg included research from german team (Grossman 1981)
improved validity

-confounding variables
studies compared may not have been matched for methodology

-imposed etic
moved technique which works in one context to another
eg : measure respinse in reunion stage
england , indicates avoidant attachment but in germany it indicates independence
behaviours in strange situation may not have the same meaning across all cultures

Question 22

outline Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

Answer 22

continual presence of care from mother/mother substitute is essential for normal psychological development
being separated from mother in childhood has serious consequences

Bowlby said first 2.5 years is critical period and if deprived of emotional care , psychological damage is inevitable- this has effects on development:

intellectual- if deprived of maternal care during critical period , child experiences delayed intellectual development
Goldfarb (1947), lower IQ for children in institutions compared to fostered

emotional- Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy (inability to express strong emotions/guilt) this prevents normal relationships and is linked to crime
Bowlby’s research - 1944, 44 thieves
interviewed for affectionless psychopathy and families interviewed if early separation
results:
14/44= affectionless psychopaths
12 of these had early separation
from remaining 33, only 5 had early separations
Bowlby concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation causes affectionless psychopathy

Question 23

evaluate Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

Answer 23

-flawed evidence
based on poor quality evidence
E.g In 44 thieves study, left open to bias as Bowlby himself interviewed so knew he expected to be an affectionless psychopath
Also, Bowlby was influenced by Goldfarb’s (1943) research on children in wartime orphanages but there were confounding variables such as trauma (not just prolonged separation)

-deprivation and privation
confusion between different types of early experience
Rutter (1981)-
privation- failure to form attachment with PAF
deprivation- loss of attachment with PAF
e.g 44 thieves, many had disrupted early lives and therefore may never have formed attachment - Bowlby overestimated seriousness of deprivation in children’s deprivation

-critical vs sensitive period
Bowlby said if no attachment after 2.5 years, damage is inevitable however evidence suggest good aftercare can prevent damage
Kolunchova (1976) - Czech twins experienced severe emotional and physical abuse however received excellent aftercare and recovered fully
suggests damage is not inevitable , perhaps ‘critcal’ period is actually ‘sensitive’ period

Question 24

Outline Romanian Orphan Studies

including :
Rutter’s research
Zeanah’s research
effects of institutionalisation

Answer 24

Romanian Orphan studies were used to study effects of deprivation on emotional and intellectual development.
In 1990s, Romanian president required women to have 5 children however many parents couldn’t afford this so children ended up in orphanages and after 1889 Romanian Revolution, many of these children were adopted.

Rutter et al’s research (2011)
-followed group of 165 orphans as part of English and Romanian Adoptee (ERA) study
-Used to investigate if good aftercare could make up for poor early experiences in institutions, orphans adopted by UK families
-physical, cognitive and emotional development assessed and compared to 52 UK adopted kids as control
-findings:
when arrived, half of adoptees showed delayed intellectual development and majority were undernourished
at age 11, adopted children showed differential rates of recovery related to age of adoption
adopted before 6 months - IQ of 102 / 6months-2yr- IQ of 86 / adopted after 2yr, IQ of 77
children adopted after 6 months showed disinhibited attachment- attention seeking, clingy (rarely displayed by children adopted before 6 months)

Zeanah’s Research:
-BEI project, assessing 95 Romanian children age 12-31 months who on average spent 90% of their lives in an institution
-they were compared to a group of children who had never been in an institution
-attachment type was measured using strange situation and carers asked about unusual social behaviour
-findings:
74% of control group were securely attached compared to only 19% of institutionalised group
description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised group compared to less than 20% in control group

Effects of institutionalisation:
disinhibited attachment - children treat near strangers with inappropriate familiarity, do not discriminate between people they choose as an attachment figure ,may be attention seeking
Rutter (2006) stated that disinhibited attachment an adaptation to living with multiple caregivers

intellectual disability - damage to intelligence as a result of being in institution
Rutter’s study showed most children arrived with intellectual disability but most who were adopted by age 6 months had caught up to control group by age 4
shows damage to intelligence as a result of institutionalisation can be recovered if adopted before 6months.

poor parenting- Quinton et al (1984) conducting research that showed that women raised in institutions experienced more difficulties acting as parents later in life, compared to women raised at home

Question 25

Evaluate Romanian Orphan Studies

Answer 25

+RWA
knowledge can be applied to improve conditions for children who are growing up outside family home
Langton (2006) - improved psychologists’ understanding of the effects of early institutional care and how to prevent the worst of these effects
E.G children’s home snow avoid assigning a large number of caregivers to each child

+fewer confounding variables
results less likely to be confounded by negative early experiences (such as children institutionalised due to war)
high internal validity

-lack of adult data
ERA study only went up to mid 20s
few longitudinal designs
may be possible for late adopted children to ‘catch up’

Question 26

explain influence of early attachment on later relationships

Answer 26

internal working model
Bowlby (1969)- child’s relationship with PAF leads to mental representation of how relationships should be - acting as template for future relationships

relationships in childhood
attachment type associated with peer relationships
Kerns (1994) - securely attached = best quality friendships
Wilson and Smith- in 1998 assessed attachment type and bullying involvement
secure= unlikely to be involved
avoidant=victims
resistant= bullies

relationships in adulthood
internal working model affects romantic and parental relationships
Hazan and Shaver (1987)- love quiz , newspaper, 620 replies
assessed :
1. current most important relationship
2.general love experiences
3.attachment type

56%= secure= longer lasting relationships
25%=avoidant= jealous/fear of intimacy
19%=resistant

internal working model affects ability to parent own child- Bailey et al (2007) , used strange situation (mother and baby) and interview (mother with own mother)
majority had same attachment classification to own baby as they did with their mother

Question 27

evaluate influence of attachment on later relationships

Answer 27

+research support
Fearon and Roisman (2017)- early attachment constantly predicts later attachment, emotional wellbeing and attachment to own children
insecure avoidant - higher chances of disorganised attachment - associated with late mental disorder

• validity issues in retrospective studies
  relies on assessment retrospectively , most studies not longitudinal
  relies heavily on honesty and accurate perception

-confounding variables
parenting style may affect both attachment quality and later relationships
genetically influenced personality may affect both factors
can’t be sure it is early attachment influencing later development