Attachment

Question 1

Outline the caregiver-infant interactions

Answer 1

2 ways bebs interact w caregiver

RECIPROCITY:

• beb and caregiver respond to each others signals and elicit a response from each other
• Jeffe et al 1973 showed infants coordinate their responses/actions w caregiver in convo-like manner
  Active involvement= they both initiate interactions
• Bebs have Alert phases where signal ready for interaction
  Feldman n Eidelman 2007 found mums pick these up 2/3 of times

INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY:

• both reflect actions/emotions in coordinated way- like mirror to eachother
• Meltzoff n Moore 1977- this starts at 2w old
  adult displayed facial expressions n beb response filmed n found gestures likely to mirror adults
  //
  even 3d olds demonstrated synchronised actions to their mum- suggests this is innate n not learned n it’s important for mum-infant attachment to occur. infants imitate mum n this is key to ability to comm. it also teaches infants how to read ppl emotions (can b important for later rs)

Question 2

Evaluate infant-caregiver interactions

Answer 2

FOR:

• High external validity- bebs not aware being observed so behaviour doesn’t change according to observation.
  well-controlled procedures used for infant-caregiver procedures w them being filmed so details of behaviour can be analysed later

AGAINST:

• hard to know what interactions mean- if general/deliberate? eg babies hand movements n facial gestures as they do this anyways
  weakens reliability n hard to make conclusions from bcz we dk if interactions have meaning
• mixed research evidence on effect of interactional synchrony.

Could be methodological issues eg Meltzoff n Moore possible observer bias where saw interactional synchrony cos that’s what they wanna c- to improve more than 1 observer needs to b present
Koepke et al 1983 failed to replicate findings n other research showed bebs couldn’t distinguish bw vid tapes n irl interactions of mums- suggests reactions not linked to mum n could be to anyone.
inconsistent findings mean can’t generalise findings of reciprocity n interactional synchrony to make general conclusions about attachment behaviour

• Need consider individual differences

Isobella et al 1989 found better quality mum-infant attachment leads to higher lvls of synchrony showing securely attached infants respond more to caregivers
this confirmed by other research suggesting dependant on other factors n not everyone experiences reciprocity n interactional synchrony same

this Brings in nature vs nurture debate bcz claimed these interactions innate but Isobella showed it depends on nurturing n attachment style of infants too

Question 3

outline stages of attachment

Answer 3

Schaffer n Emerson 1964 based this on formation of early infant-adult attachments

METHOD:
60 bebs n mums Glasgow. researchers visited home every month for 1st yr n again at 18m n we’re qd about protests baby displayed in everyday separation- designed to measure babies attachment n stranger anxiety

FINDINGS:
- bebs started experiencing separation anxiety bw 25-32w suggests attachment learnt not innate
- infant attached to the more sensitive caregiver over 1 that spent most time w em shows that quality of interactions important in attachment

they identified 4 states in the development of infant attachment behaviour

Question 4

Outline the 4 stages of attachment

Answer 4

they identified 4 stages in the development of infant attachment behaviour

1. Asocial 0-2m- infants respond similar to inanimate objects n ppl but prefer interactions w human eg thru smiling
2. Indiscriminate attachment 2-7m- no stranger anxiety n happy to b comforted by anyone
3. Specific attachment 7m- form attachment to primary caregiver (usually mum), leads to separation anxiety when mum leaves, stranger anxiety n joy at reunion w primary caregiver
4. multiple attachments 8m- formed w ppl infant spends time w eg dad= secondary attachment

Question 5

evaluate the stage of attachment

Answer 5

FOR:

• high external validity- observations done n reported by parents whereas alt woulda been to have researchers present to observe which may have distracted the parents n scared the baby so would’ve unnatural behaviour

AGAINST:

• data maybe unreliable- mums may’ve not reported some behaviours n over-exaggerated others to give socially desirable ans(s) so reduces validity
• lacks pop validity- sample working class neighbourhood in glasgow so can’t generalise findings to other social classes
• temporal validity- 1960s had diff attitudes to kids n esp w dads which had less interaction w kids. research shown stay at home dads now quadrupled in 2014 n likely this increased more now
• mixed research evidence- Bushnell 1989 found 24hr old bebs looked longer at mum than other women showing they can distinguish bw caregiver so supports idea attachment innate which contradicts Schaffer n Emerson who said bond takes months to form. also mixed evidence means can’t conclude all bebs go thru sane stages of attachment
• Research based on observing baby’s behaviour- v hard to est what one’s observing is true n intentional behaviour from baby n not what observer wants to c (observer bias). also there’s lil behaviour to observe at pre-attachment stages so reliability of findings q’able

Question 6

Outline role of father

Answer 6

traditionally weren’t involved in child nurturing bcz were breadwinners so away making p whilst mum took care of house n kids. modern time- clear shift in this attitude so dads role n effectiveness in forming attachments become sig interest to psychs

• schaffer n emerson 1964 found majority of babies first attach to mum around 7m. by 18m, 75% form attachment w dad- protested when dad left which’s sign of attachment
• grossman 2002- longitudinal study where babies studied tool teens. found quality of play w baby linked to quality of adolescent attachment
  suggests role is for play which’s diff from mum who’s role is nurture
• evidence to support dads that become primary caregivers where they adopt typical behaviours of mum
  field 1978 found primary dads spent more time smiling, imitating n holding beb compared to secondary dads
  shows these behaviours important in attachment n gender main factor but sensitivity n responsiveness crucial- important cos suggests in absence of mum dad can effectively adopt role of primary caregiver

Question 7

evaluate the role of the father

Answer 7

FOR:

• irl application- advises parents w many dads becoming more involved w upbringing of kids n mums returning to work, studies reassure them dad can b primary caregiver
  lesbo couples- reassures absence of dad don’t affect development so anxiety of role of dad reduced

AGAINST:

• nature vs nurture
  nature:
  mum has female hormone oestrogen which produces nurturing instincts so biologically predisposed to be primary caregiver
  •support from **Hrdy 1999* who found mums detect distress signals from kids better than dads
  Geiger 1996 found dads more exciting to play w than mum whose job is nurture so supports view dads role is secondary caregiver n more playmate
  nurture:
  arguable dads capable of primary care but bcz of gender socialisation they’re pushed away from this role n women pushed to it so there’s less likely to b primary caregiver
• McCallum 2004 found kids who grew up w/o dad didn’t develop diff from kids w both parents which Grossman’s research doesn’t explain- indicates dads not important in secondary caregiver attachment

Question 8

Outline animal studies: Harlow’s study

Answer 8

Harlow 1935

• newborn monkeys separated from mums n put in cage with 2 wire mesh cylinders
  condition:
  1) wire has teat monkeys could get milk from
  2) cylinder covered in cloth towel

FOUND:

• monkeys preferred cloth mum n spent time hugging for comfort n security when scared.
  shows contact comfort more important than food
• in further study found effects of maternal deprivation on monkeys raised by wire mum (dysfunctional) so indicated importance of early attachment in later psychological well-being

Question 9

evaluate harlow study

Answer 9

FOR:

• theoretical value to humans- can help improve quality of care given to bebs from birth
  eg used to b taken from mum at birth to let her rest but now given straight away to em so imprinting n attachment formed
• irl application- showed neglect of infants has long term psychological effects so social workers can intervene when appropriate n recognise where interventions needed to avoid long term damage to child

AGAINST:

• sample bias- only monkeys used. tho mammals n genetically similar humans more complex n conscious so results can’t generalise as not appropriate
• ethics- monkeys suffered maternal deprivation which had short term n long term effects on em. if can argue there genetically similar to generalise results then we must acknowledge they’d suffer similar consequences bcz of depression so is ethically incorrect

Question 10

outline animal studies: Lorenz

Answer 10

lorenz 1935

AIM= to investigate mechanisms of imprinting (rapid sense of belonging n identity)

• took goose eggs n split em into 2grps:
  control- hatched w mum
  n other eggs hatched in incubator w Lorenz

FOUND:
- incubator grp followed lorenz n control followed mum so he felt this is imprinting where infants attach to whatever they first c like geese did
- he said imprinting has critical period (4-25hrs after hatching) or they’ll never form an attachment which will be irreversible
this imprinting shows attachments innate bcz infants attach to whatever they first c

Question 11

evaluate lorenz study

Answer 11

FOR:

• theoretical value to humans- can help improve quality of care given to bebs from birth
  eg used to b taken from mum at birth to let her rest but now given straight away to em so imprinting n attachment formed
• irl application- showed neglect of infants has long term psychological effects so social workers can intervene when appropriate n recognise where interventions needed to avoid long term damage to child
• Guiton et al 1966- chickens saw washing gloves n imprinted onto these n tried mate w em later
  HOWEVER:
  contrary to lorenz, he found this is reversible n chickens could later prefer chickens mates over gloves

AGAINST:

• inaccurate to generalise- humans more complex n mammalian mums r more responsive than birds
• ethics- birds suffered long term effects on later rs(s) n courting behaviour but it’s **arguable justified cos knowledge shows importance of quality of early rs(s) on later development

Question 12

Explanations of attachment: learning theory

Answer 12

Classical conditioning:
based on the learning theory which associates 2 stimuli together so we respond to 1 same way we respond to the other. infants have an innate refereed causing them to seek food

Food= ucs
Pleasure from food = ucr
caregiver= ns
when food given to to infant pleasures associated w caregiver n once this done few times caregiver becomes conditioned stimulus. the pleasure associated w caregiver becomes the conditioned response which learning theorists believe is equivalent to an attachment formed

operant conditioning:
learning thru reinforcement (neg, pos, punishment)
•behaviour that causes pos response likely to be repeated
•behaviour causing neg response less likely to b repeated

Dollard n Miller 1950 explain when baby hungry this causes discomfort putting baby in driven state motivated to reduce discomfort. baby is fed by caregiver which reduces discomfort n is rewarding.
food becomes primary reinforcer n caregiver is secondary reinforcer so infant becomes attached to this source of food

Reinforcement = 2way process. babies reinforced for crying
crying is neg reinforcer for caregiver so feeding them removes negative response of crying
interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthen attachment

Question 13

Evaluate explanations of attachment: learning theory

Answer 13

FOR:

• some evidence supporting conditioning- still useful explanation of attachment as we seen human developments affected conditioning. provision of comfort n association bw caregiver n social interactions is part of what builds an attachment therefore learning theory may still b useful in understanding development of attachment

AGAINST:

• hella emphasis on food- there’s ample evidence for this as seen in Harlow’s study infants attach to caregiver for security n comfort not j food
  Schaffer n Emerson seen infants attach to caregiver that showed most sensitivity even if someone else was feeding them.
  shows attachment can’t b based on j associating caregiver w food as oversimplistic n human behaviour is more complex than j innate needs eg food
• env reductionist- assume all behaviour learnt so on nurture side of debate n no consideration to innate links bw caregiver infants or instinct on part of beb or parents to attach

assumes human predictable w stimulus link leaving no room for cog attachment n thoughts that go into forming attachment rather than j being automated learning process n doesn’t consider emotional side of attachment

Bowlby’s theory shows attachment innate n not learnt

• learning theory based on animal studies eg Pavlov dogs
  so can say lacks validity cos can’t say we’d attach same way n generalisability to humans irrelevant bcz we complex n can’t be applied to infant-caregiver interactions

Question 14

Outline Bowlby’s theory of attachment: monotropy

Answer 14

• he see attachment = innate and adaptive. they give us survival adv bcz if infant has attachment to caregiver, they’re kept safe eg food n warmth
• Bebs have social releasers= behaviours unlocking innate tendencies in adults to care for them
  PHYSICAL: typical baby features n body proportions
  BEHAVIOURAL: cooing, crying n smiling
• critical period is 3-6m where attachment needs to occur but he later acknowledged this can be upto 3yrs but early attachment preferable
• monotropy= idea that rs infant has w primary is highly sig in emotional development. this will be w 1 who shown most sensitivity to social releasers n responded to them (usually mum)
• infant’s IWM formed based on monotropic attachment- serves as model for what future rs(s) will look like including romantic
  • kids who had strong/loving montropic rs w primary will produce loving rs in future bcz expectations that’s how all rs(s) are
  • kids w poor monotropic rs will produce weak/dysfunctional rs or struggle to even form 1

IWM affects parenting- explains y those who grew up in dysfunctional families go on to have dysfunctional families of own
eg Harlow monkeys that were separated from mum went onto neglect bebs

Question 15

evaluate bowlby’s theory of attachment: monotropy

Answer 15

FOR:

• Bailey et al 2007 supports IWM. 99mums n their 1yo bebs were assessed n he found that mums that had poor rs w parents likely to have poor quality attachments w own bebs-
  supports idea that IWM passed thru families n confirms importance of early attachment to primary
• considers nature n nurture- whilst attachment bw infant n caregiver has innate elements which’s essential for survival n is evolutionary, quality of that attachment based on nurturing of infant n hence acknowledges importance of env factors in child rearing

AGAINST:

• Sexist/socially sensitive- feminists criticise idea of monotropy bcz pressure on mums bcz they usually primary meaning can’t return to work without guilt of damage kid’s IWM
  sexist on dads bcz they secondary n according to Bowlby this rs would be inferior. His theory considered socially sensitive as there’s greater emphasis on shared parenting n equality
• Some innate factors were ignored-
  Kagan 1984 proposed the temperament hypothesis:
  considers innate personality traits of infant n their temperament n its effect on attachment formed
  •some kids maybe naturally calm n ‘ez’ so elicit healthy responses from mum to form pos attachment
  •others more irritable n difficult leading to bonding being harder so created poor attachment
  this is limitation of Bowlby bcz failed to acknowledge this factor

Question 16

outline the strange situ classification (SSC)

Answer 16

Ainsworth 1970:

• controlled lab observation to assess security of beb attachment to caregiver.
• Infants aged 9-18m used
  2 way mirror used where infant interactions were observed n recorded
• (event sampling) 8 events took place lasted 3m each to test aspects:
  1) willingness to explore- beb taken to new env w mum present
  2) Stranger anxiety- reaction to stranger enter room n comforts beb
  3) Separation anxiety- reaction to mum leaving room
  4) Reunion behaviour- reaction to mum returning

From this, she identified 3 categories of behaviour:

TYPE A (22%)
Insecure-avoidant: unaffected by mums presence/absence, no stranger/separation anxiety, no reaction at reunion, poor IWM. been linked w carer who rejects infant resulting in lil attachment to carer

TYPE B (66%)
Secure- responds to mums presence n she responds to needs, happy to explore, high stranger anxiety, pos IWM, subdued when mum leaves, joy at reunion

TYPE C (12%)
Insecure resistant- inconsistent w wanting mum or not, exaggerated emotion, highly distressed at separation, angry at reunion. carer inconsistent w responsiveness to baby

CONCLUSION:
this is evidence for individual differences in attachment. supports existence of 3 attachment types.
supports caregiver sensitivity hypothesis-attachment heavily influenced by responsiveness as shown by Schaffer n Emerson glasgow study

Question 17

evaluate the SSC

Answer 17

FOR:

• high inter-observer reliability
  •controlled lab experiment n clear categories used so replicable n expect results to b consistent
  • team of observers used so decreased chances of bias so high inter observer reliability
  • She found reliability rating bw observers to b 0.94 which v high cos 1 perfect so results generalisable

AGAINST:

• cultural relativism
  her classification of secure attachment based on western ideas- acceptable parenting styles n styles of attachment vary across cultures n so higher proportion of kids classified as insecure avoidant n resistant so results not generalisable across cultures
• restrictive
  Main n Solomon 1986 analysed 100s of strange situ episodes from tapes n pointed out she overlooked 4th category which showed inconsistent behaviour: mixture of resistant n avoidant behaviour so M&S classified this as Type D: Disorganised attachment

This indicates whilst her categories r widely used n accepted, we should be open to discovery of other attachment styles

Question 18

Outline cultural variations in attachment

Answer 18

differences in norms/values that exist bw ppl in diff grps

Ijzendoorn n Kroonenberg 1988

• meta analysis of 32 studies w nearly 2k kids across 8diff countries to assess effects of cultures on attachments using Ainsworth’s SSC
  only studies using 35+ infants were used

FOUND:

• secure most common across cultures w proportions varying eg GB had highest % n China had lowest
• avoidant highest in G bcz of individualistic culture so they’re raised to be independent
• resistant highest in Israel,China, Japan-
  last 2 bcz of collectivist culture so rarely separated from highly responsive mum
  Israel kids used to separation from mum but not used to strangers hence resistant

CONCLUSIONS:
- Diff type child rearing-> diff attachment styles w most common being secure-
supports Bowlby’s idea that there’s link bw attachment n characteristics later in life
- differences can attributed to cultural differences instead of poor infant-caregiver rs

Question 19

evaluate cultural differences in attachment

Answer 19

FOR:

• RESEARCH SUPPORT- Grossman n Grossman 2002 found G infants more insecurely attached n avoidant supporting G culture involves less proximity to parents n less interpersonal engagement w carer. This study can b quite important in raising our awareness of differences bw attachment styles n cultures
• IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS can b drawn from I&K n G&G as both support nurture side of debate showing cultural env, norms, values greatly affects attachment rs(s) n infant behaviour as a result

AGAINST:

• INDIVIDUALISTIC- 27/32 off cultures were this, many American, as opposed to collectivist so lacks pop validity. there’s obvs differences bw child rearing n attachment styles depending on if culture I or C so can be accused of being unrepresentative n conclusions may not be generalisable
• DIFFERENCES W/I THAN B/W-
  arguable diff cultures not studied but rather diff countries n w/i these countries there’s huge range of diff cultures so results can’t b generalised for each country n drawing conclusions would be futile
• results based on ’ imposed etic-
  SSC culturally inappropriate as we judging attachment in a culture based on western measure
  eg G culture would b seen as flawed bcz parenting leads to more insecure infants according to SSC
  but it could b due to methodology used that cultural bias so this further dampens relevance of any conclusions drawn n may lack validity for applications in diff cultures

Question 20

outline bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory

Answer 20

Maternal deprivation hypothesis= where emotional care of mum lost for sig period of time eg hospitalisation of mum.
he believed this’ll lead to emotional maladjustment n possible mental health problems. It’ll affect intellectual development same way lack food affects physical development. Effect would esp b there if deprivation occurred in critical period-upto 3yo but anytime till 5yo

Bowlby 1944- 44 thieves study
examined link bw affectionless-psychopathy n maternal deprivation

• he analysed case histories of his p(s) in Ldn clinic. 88 maladjusted kids aged 5-16 of which 44 were caught stealing
• from interviews deduced 14 were affectionless psychopaths (lacked moral responsibility guilt n shame)
• from the 44 in control grp despite being emotionally maladjusted, only 2 suffered long term maternal deprivation n so according to B, maternal deprivation linked to resulting affectionless psychopathy

Maternal deprivation also led to crimes inability to form rs(s)

Question 21

evaluate bowlbys maternal deprivation theory

Answer 21

FOR:

• RESEARCH SUPPORT:
  Bifulco et al 1992 studied women who experienced maternal deprivation in childhood. 25% of them were found to later have depression/anxiety which is 10% higher than those who didn’t suffer maternal deprivation showing clear link. Support also found for the critical period idea as those who suffered deprivation upto n including age 5, likely to have mental disorders
• IRL APPLICATION
  bowlby ideas have this.
  eg hospital policies used to discourage/forbid parents visiting kids in hospital but now they’ve right to visit n even stay overnight w them. showing his work v important in how we rear our children n policies regarding it

AGAINST:

• MIXED RESEARCH EVIDENCE
  Lewis 1944 used larger sample to replicate juvenile study n didn’t find link bw deprivation n criminal behaviour/mental disorders.
  even w B study, at best we can conclude there’s correlation bw deprivation n criminal behaviour/mental health n not causation as other factors would come into play eg individual differences so limits consistency of data thus reduces reliability
• OVERLOOKING DEPRIVATION N PRIVATION
  Rutter emphasises those affected in way B described isn’t like those who suffered privation where attachment was never made rather than that of suffering deprivation where existing attachments lost for period
  rutter claimed severe long term damage occurred due to privation eg institutionalised kids

Question 22

outline the effects of institutionalisation

Answer 22

Orphanages were associated w lack of care n love. A romanian policy demanded the women have 5 kids which led to many being put in orphanages n so the effects of this have been studied

Rutter et al 2011- Romanian orphans study

• longitudinal study 165 romanian orphans majority which were adopted b4 2yo and rest adopted b4 4yo
• they were assessed on physical, mental, cog development n compared to control grp of GB adopted kids of similar age
• b4 adoption, kids spent time in romanian orphanages n were classed as having physical n mental retardation

FOUND:
- those adopted b4 6m old likely to catchup to british counterparts
- adopted after 6m showed sig development impairments, disinhibited attachment(clingy n attention seek), inability to form rs(s) w peers n had lower IQ at 15yo compared to control grp
showing effects of institutionalisation on romanian orphans n suggests earlier adoption reduces consequences of these effects

Question 23

Outline effects of institutionalisation

Answer 23

• disinhibited attachment disorder:
  overfriendly, desperate attention seeking, clingy, no discrimination w those they know n dk, no stranger anxiety
  can b explained by fact they had multiple carers none w whom they formed secure attachment w
• physical underdevelopment: kids in institutions tend to be physically smaller n this often down to lack of emotional nourishment instead of physical nourishment
  aka deprivation dwarfism
• poor parenting:
  kids in institutions likely to b poor parents themselves- explained by Harlow monkeys where lack of meaningful attachment led to neglectful parenting

Question 24

evaluate effects of institutionalisation

Answer 24

FOR:

• LONGITUDINAL:
  allows us to analyse short n long term consequences deprivation n identify how risk factors can be reduced
  eg give high quality care after adoption
• IRL APPLICATION- improvements to institutions made as result
  •eg effort to retain staff n allocate carer to child so they have consistency in attachment rather than changing carers to avoid disinhibited attachment behaviours forming
  •ensures adoption occurs early as possible
  eg b4 kids left w bio mother long as possible b4 adoption
  this is so attachment to new caregivers begin immediately n forms secure rs
  singer et al claimed early adoption leads to attachment being secure w adopted parents as it’d have been w bio parents

AGAINST:

• focus on only deprivation of healthy attachments n care rs(s)

however romanian orphans studied faced extreme poverty, lack of intellectual stimulation n malnourishment n so risk factors which could explain effects they faced later in life
so cause n effect can’t be est’d n results can’t b generalised to all institution kids so consequences of their attachment from deprivation can’t b generalised so lacks eco validity
experience of institution kids varies considerably depending on many factors so idiographic approach focusing on individual case over nomothetic approach would b more creditworthy in examining effects of institutionalisation

Question 25

outline the effect of early attachments on later rs(s)

Answer 25

continuity hypothesis= IWM suggests early attachment rs(s) would create blueprint for later rs(s) n expectations n chances of successful bonding would b influenced by this, reflecting whether attachment was secure/insecure

Smith 1998 found kids that had:
secure= less likely to b involved
avoidant= likely bullied
resistant = likely bullies
support from Bailey et al 2007 99 mother study he found mums that had poor rs w their own parents likely to have poor rs w own kids

Hazan n Shaver 1987 found adult rs(s) show early attachment’s crucial:

• a key study where they used ‘love quiz’ in american newspaper n analysed 620 responses.
• FOUND:
  pos correlation bw childhood attachment rs(s) n their subsequent experiences of adult love

•secure = likely have happy loving rs cos saw love as mutual n endearing
•avoidant= more cautious in love rs(s) n found harder to form bonds bcz of fear
•resistant= difficult romantic rs(s) but prone to fall in love easily n found hard to find true love

both insecure types likely to b divorced n skeptical of existence of true love

Question 26

evaluate influence of early attachment on later rs(s)

Answer 26

FOR:

• hazan n shaver study SUPPORTS CONTINUITY HYPOTHESIS
  demonstrates importance of early attachment rs(s) hence suggests there’s clear link bw attachment n future rs(s)

AGAINST:

• methodological issues dealing w long term effects
  H&S study required self-report techniques eg q’aires which could’ve low validity as sensitive topic so may not be honest w high chance of ppl idealising their rs(s) so results could suffer desirability bias
• asked to rmbr childhood experiences to rmbr what attachment style they had n relies on em having good memory n many woulda forgotten childhood events so lacks validity. way to fix this is conduct longitudinal study
• even when link shown, most that can b determined is there’s correlation bw attachment n romantic rs(s) not causation bcz there’s too many variables could affect attachment n romantic rs(s) eg temperament of person n influence of others
• Deterministic-
  continuity hypothesis is this cos indicates poor attachment on childhood means can’t have successful romantic rs-

support from Rutter et al
1999 pointed out cases ppl w insecure childhood attachment formed stable adult rs(s)

on contrast, Hamilton 1994 found ppl w secure childhood attachments later became insecure in adult rs bcz of life events so these findings weaken claims of IWM indicating childhood rs(s) n attachment don’t have permanent consequences n deterministic view is incorrect n balance better cos could acknowledge IWM maybe some influence of later rs but we ultimately we possess free will on how adult rs turn out n this can negate effects of childhood attachments