Attachment

Question 1

CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS
Explain the concept of reciprocity.

Answer 1

an action is said to show reciprocity when each person responds to the other and elicits a response from them,
e.g.) a caregiver may respond to a baby’s smile by saying something, which may then elicit a response from the baby.

alert phases:
- signals that a baby gives to show that they are ready for attention, e.g.) eye contact.
- Feldman and Eidelman (2007): mothers typically pick up on alert phases 2/3 the time… varies according to skill of the mother & external factors (stress) (Feldman (2007))
- 3+ months: this interaction tends to become increasingly frequent, involves both mum and baby paying attention to each other.

active involvement:
- babies take an active, not passive, role in interactions and can initiate them.

Question 2

CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS
Explain the concept of interactional synchrony.

Answer 2

interactional synchrony: when a caregiver and baby interact in such a way that their actions and emotions mirror the other

synchrony begins:
- Meltzoff and Moore (1977): observed synchrony at 2 weeks old; babies’ expressions and gestures were more likely to mirror those of the adults - significant association

importance for attachment:
- Isabella et al (1989): assessed synchrony and quality of attachment in 30 mums and babies; found high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mum-baby attachment

Question 3

Evaluate CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS

Answer 3

STRENGTH: filmed observations
- other activity that can distract a baby can be controlled
- observations can be analysed later (recorded)
- more than one observer can record data (establishes inter-rater reliability)
- baby doesn’t know they’re being observed, so no demand characteristics
~~> good reliability and validity

LIMITATION: difficulty observing/interpretating babies’ behaviour
- young babies lack co-ordination
- most of the observations are small hand movements and subtle changes in expression
- difficult to determine reason for behaviour… response to caregiver or random twitch?
~~> uncertainty in special meaning of behaviours

LIMITATION: doesn’t tell us developmental importance
- Feldman (2012): synchrony and reciprocity are simply names of patterns of observable behaviour
- doesn’t tell us the purpose of these behaviours
~~> cannot be sure from research alone that reciprocity and synchrony are important for a child’s development
——-> COUNTERPOINT: evidence from other research
- Isabella et al (1989): achievement of interactional synchrony predicted the development of a good quality attachment
~~> on balance, caregiver-infant interaction is probably important in development

Question 4

CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS
Match the researcher to the research:

Isabella et al (1989)

Brazelton et al (1975)

Feldman (2007)

Meltzoff and Moore (1977)

Babies take an active role in interactions, described interaction as a dance (taking turns)

Synchrony linked to better quality mother-baby attachment

Babies mirror adults’ expressions and gestures from two weeks old

Interactional synchrony is when parent and baby signals synchronise

Answer 4

Isabella et al (1989): Synchrony linked to better quality mother-baby attachment

Meltzoff and Moore (1977): Babies mirror adults’ expressions and gestures from 2 weeks old

Feldman (2007): Interactional synchrony is when parent and baby signals synchronise

Brazelton et al (1975): Babies take an active role in interactions, described interaction as a dance (taking turns)

Question 5

SCHAFFER’S STAGES OF ATTACHMENT
Outline Schaffer and Emerson’s 4 stages of attachment

Answer 5

Stage 1: ASOCIAL STAGE (0-2 months)
- interaction to people and inanimate objects is similar (hence ‘asocial’)
- signs of preference to people over inanimate objects
- preference for company of familiar people, more easily comforted by them.

Stage 2: INDISCRIMINATE ATTACHMENT (2-7 months)
- clear preference for being with humans rather than objects
- prefer company of familiar people but accept cuddles from anyone (hence ‘indiscriminate’)
- no separation anxiety or stranger anxiety

Stage 3: SPECIFIC ATTACHMENT (7 months)
- signs of attachment to one particular person
- stranger anxiety, especially when attachment figure is absent
- separation anxiety
- person with whom the attachment is formed is now the primary attachment figure - not necessarily the person who spends the most time with baby, but the one who gives the most interaction and responds to baby’s alert phases (signals) the most
- this is the mother in 65% of cases

Stage 4: MULTIPLE ATTACHMENTS (after 7 months)
- babies extend attachment behaviour (stranger and separation anxiety) towards multiple people with whom they regularly spend time (called multiple attachments)
- by 1 year old, most babies have developed multiple attachments

Question 6

SCHAFFER’S STAGES OF ATTACHMENT
Evaluate Schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachment

Answer 6

STRENGTH: real-world application (day care)
- in asocial and discriminate stage, day care is likely to be straightforward as babies can be comforted by any skilled adult
- however Schaffer and Emerson’s research: day care (especially starting day care with an unfamiliar adult) may be problematic during the specific attachment stage
~~> parents’ use of day care can be planned using Schaffer and Emerson’s stages

STRENGTH: good external validity
- most observations were made by parents and reported to researchers (rather than observations made by researchers)
- this would have made babies more distracted and/or anxious
~~> likely ptps behaved naturally while being observed
——-> COUNTERPOINT: possible lack of inaccurate observation from mothers
- bias in what they were reporting (e.g. not noticed when baby showed signs of anxiety) or misremembered it
~~> even if babies behaved accurately, it may not have been recorded

LIMITATION: poor evidence for asocial stage
- young babies have poor coordination and are fairly immobile
- if babies less than 2 months old felt anxiety about everyday situations, they might have displayed this in a quite subtle, hard-to-observe way
- difficult therefore for mothers to observe and report to researchers about signs of anxiety and attachment in this age group
~~> babies may actually be social but, because of flawed methods, they appear to be asocial

Question 7

use the figures 3%, 27% and 75%

ROLE OF THE FATHER
Describe what Schaffer and Emerson found in their stages of attachment study with regards to the role of the father

Answer 7

• 3% cases: father was first sole object of attachment
• 27% cases: father was joint first object of attachment with mother
• 75% of babies studied in their research had formed an attachment with the father in the first 18 months

Question 8

Babies’ attachments into their teens, longitudinal study

ROLE OF THE FATHER
What did Grossmann et al (2002) do?

Answer 8

• longitudinal study where babies’ attachments were studied until they were into their teens
• studied both parents’ behaviour and its relationship to the quality of their baby’s later attachments to other people
• quality of baby’s with mothers (but not fathers!) was related to attachments in adolescence.
  ~~> suggests attachment to fathers is less important than attachments to mothers

however!
- also found that the quality of the fathers’ play with babies is related to the quality of adolescent attachments.
~~> suggests fathers have a different role from mothers; one that is more to do with play and stimulation, and less to do with emotional development

Question 9

ROLE OF THE FATHER
Explore the role of the father as primary attachment figures and include details about the work of Field (1978)

Answer 9

• a baby’s primary attachment has special emotional significance; a baby’s relationship with their primary attachment figure forms the basis of all later close emotional relationships
• but there’s evidence of fathers being able to adopt the more emotional role (which is typically associated with the mother)

FIELD (1978)
- filmed 4-month-old babies in face-to-face interactions with primary caregiver mothers (PCMs), secondary caregiver fathers (SCFs) and primary caregiver fathers (PCFs)
- PCFs, like PCMs, spent more time smiling, imitating and holding babies than SCFs (these are all part of reciprocity and interactional synchrony - part of the process of attachment formation)
- therefore fathers have the potential to be the more emotion-focused and responsiveness primary care-giver, but perhaps only express it when given the role of the primary caregiver

Question 10

ROLE OF THE FATHER
Evaluate the role of the father in attachment

Answer 10

STRENGTH: real-world application
- can be used to offer advice to parents
- parents and prospective parents often agonise over decisions like who should take on the role of the primary caregiver, can mean worrying about having children at all
- mothers and fathers may feel pressured to conform to the stereotypes of stay-at-home mum and dad-who-works etc
- not always the best decision economically
- helpful for both heterosexual and same-sex parents in that the caregiver roles (and the child’s development) is not dependant on gender.
~~> parental anxiety about role of father can be reduced

LIMITATION: conflicting evidence
- findings vary according to the methodology used
- Grossman et al study showed fathers as secondary attachment figures have an important and distinct role in their child’s development involving, play and stimulation
- however if fathers have a distinctive role, we would expect that children growing up in lesbian-parent or single-mother families would turn out in a different way from those in heterosexual two-parent families
- studies consistently show (McCallum and Golombok 2004) these children do not develop diferently from children in two-parent heterosexual families
~~> question about fathers having a distinctive role remains unanswered
——-> COUNTERPOINT: these lines of research may not be conflicting
- could be that fathers typically take on a distinctive roles in two-parent heterosexual families, but that parents in single-mother and lesbian-parent families simply adapt to accomodate the role played by fathers
~~> question for distinctive role of fathers is clear after all: when fathers are present, they tend to adopt a distinctive role, but families can adapt to not having a father

LIMITATION: confusion over research questions
- lack of clarity over the question being asked
- “what is the role of the father?” is more complicated than it sounds
- some researchers are investigating “the role of the father” by investigating them as secondary attachment figures, in a distinctively different role to mothers
- but others focus on fathers as primary attachment figures, taking on a ‘maternal’ role
~~> difficult to offer a simple answer to “what is the role of the father?”, depends on the role being discussed

Question 11

ROLE OF THE FATHER
Match the researcher to the research

Grossmann et al (2002)
Field (1978)
McCallum and Golombok (2004)

Filmed 4-month-old babies with primary caregiver fathers, primary caregiver mothers and secondary caregiver fathers. Found that fathers have the potential to take on the role of the primary caregiver if they are assigned the role.

Longitudinal study on babies’ attachments into teen years. Found that the quality of the attachment between child and mothers, but not fathers, was related to attachments in adolescence, suggesting attachment to fathers is less important than attachment mothers.

Children raised in single-parent or lesbian-parent families do not develop differently from children in two-parent heterosexual families.

Answer 11

Grossmann et al (2002): Longitudinal study on babies’ attachments into teen years. Found that the quality of the attachment between child and mothers, but not fathers, was related to attachments in adolescence, suggesting attachment to fathers is less important than attachment mothers.

Field (1978): Filmed 4-month-old babies with primary caregiver fathers, primary caregiver mothers and secondary caregiver fathers. Found that fathers have the potential to take on the role of the primary caregiver if they are assigned the role.

McCallum and Golombok (2004): Children raised in single-parent or lesbian-parent families do not develop differently from children in two-parent heterosexual families.

Question 12

Imprinting and sexual imprinting

ANIMAL STUDIES OF ATTACHMENT
Outline Lorenz’s (1952) research:
Imprinting

Answer 12

IMPRINTING: (birds are mobile from birth and attach to and follow the first moving object they see)

procedure:
- randomly divided a large clutch of goose eggs
- half hatched with mother in natural environment (control group), other half hatched in incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz

findings:
- incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere whereas control group followed their mother
- when the two groups were mixed, control group continued to follow their mother and incubator group continued to follow Lorenz
- critical period: (few hours after hatching) if no imprinting occurs in that time then chicks did not attach themselves to a mother figure

Question 13

ANIMAL STUDIES OF ATTACHMENT
Outline Lorenz’s (1952) research:
Sexual imprinting

Answer 13

SEXUAL IMPRINTING: (Lorenz investigated the relationship between imprinting and adult mate preferences)
- 1952: a peacock had been reared in the reptile house of a zoo where the first moving object it saw were giant tortoises
- as an adult, the peacock would only direct courtship behaviour towards giant tortoises
~~> he concluded that the peacock had undergone sexual imprinting

Question 14

include APFC, long-term effects and critical period

ANIMAL STUDIES OF ATTACHMENT
Outline Harlow’s (1958) Research and its long-term effects

Answer 14

AIM:
- [To investigate the importance of food over comfort]

PROCEDURE:
- 16 baby rhesus monkeys
- wire ‘mother’ and cloth ‘mother’
- milk was dispensed by the wire mother in one condition and by the cloth mother in another

FINDINGS:
- cuddled cloth mother in preference to wire mother
- sought comfort from cloth mother rather than wire mother regardless of whether it provided milk or not

CONCLUSIONS:
- ‘contact comfort’ was more important to the monkeys than food was

Additional long-term effects:
- early maternal deprivation had a permanent effect
- they didn’t cradle their offspring because they weren’t cradled by the ‘mothers’
- more aggressive, less sociable, unskilled at mating (so had less offspring), bad mothers (neglected offspring)

THEREFORE there must be a critical period - 90 days - if no attachment before then, irreversible effects

Question 15

ANIMAL STUDIES OF ATTACHMENT
Evaluate (one strength one limitation) Lorenz’s gosling research

Answer 15

STRENGTH: research support
- Regolin and Vallortigara (1995): chicks exposed to several moving shapes, they followed the first one they saw most closely
~~> supports the idea that animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object in the critical window of development

LIMITATION: generalisability to humans
- mammalian attachment system is different and more complex than that of birds
- mammals: two-way process, both mum and young become emotionally attached
~~> not appropriate to generalise findings to humans

Question 16

ANIMAL STUDIES OF ATTACHMENT
Evaluate (one strength one limitation) Harlow’s monkey research

Answer 16

STRENGTH: real-world application
- helps social workers and clinical psychologists understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in a child’s development; allows them to intervene to prevent poor outcomes
- understanding of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes in the wild
~~> the value of Harlow’s research is practical, not just theoretical

LIMITATION: generalisability to humans
- the human brain and behaviour are much more complex than that of monkeys
~~> cannot generalise these findings to humans

Question 17

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: LEARNING THEORY
Outline Dollard and Miller’s (1950) learning theory of attachment:
Classical conditioning

Answer 17

CLASSICAL CONDITIONING
- UCS (food) –> UCR (pleasure - hunger is satisfied)
- UCS (food) + NS (caregiver) –> UCR (pleasure)
- CS (caregiver) –> CR (pleasure)
- the conditioned response of pleasure is love, i.e. an attachment is formed and the caregiver becomes an attachment figure

Question 18

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: LEARNING THEORY
Outline Dollard and Miller’s (1950) learning theory of attachment:
Operant conditioning

Answer 18

OPERANT CONDITIONING
- explains why babies cry for comfort
- crying leads to a response from the caregiver (feeding)
- as long as the caregiver provides the correct response, crying will be reinforced
- the baby then directs crying for comfort towards the caregiver who responds with comforting ‘social suppressor’ behaviour
- two-way process: baby is reinforced for crying, caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops (escaping from something unpleasant is reinforcing)
- this interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens the attachment

Question 19

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: LEARNING THEORY
Outline what Sears et al (1957) suggested about the concept of drive reduction

Answer 19

• as well as conditioning, learning theory draws on the concept of drive reduction
• hunger can be thought of as a primary drive - it’s an innate, biological motivator
• we are motivated to eat in order to reduce the hunger drive
• Sears et al (1957): as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger is generalised to them
• attachment is thus a secondary drive learned by association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive

Question 20

3 limitations, 1 strength

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: LEARNING THEORY
Evaluate Dollard and Miller’s (1950) learning theory of attachment

Answer 20

LIMITATION: counter-evidence from animal studies
- Lorenz’s geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw, regardless of whether this object was associated with food
- Harlow’s monkeys displayed attachment behaviour towards cloth ‘mother’ in preference to a wire one with provided milk
~~> factors other than association with food are important in the formation of attachments

LIMITATION: counter-evidence from studies
- Schaffer and Emerson (1964): babies form main attachment to mother regardless of whether she was the one who usually feeds them
- Isabella et al (1989): high levels of synchrony predicted the quality of attachment
- these factors are not related to feeding
~~> factors other than association with food are important in the formation of attachments

STRENGTH: some conditioning may be involved
- unlikely food plays a central role, but a baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with a particular adult
- this may influence the baby’s choice of their main attachment figure
~~> learning theory may still be useful in understanding development of attachments
——-> COUNTERPOINT: learning theory suggests babies play a passive role
- Feldman (2007): babies take an active role in the interactions that produce attachments (alert phases)
~~> conditioning may not be an adequate explanation of any aspect of attachment

Question 21

think “ASCMI” (“ask me”)

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: BOWLBY’S THEORY
Briefly explain the 5 aspects of Bowlby’s (1988) monotropic theory

Answer 21

Adaptive: attachment is an evolutionary behaviour that helps with survival.

Social releasers: innate behaviours (e.g. crying, smiling) that elicit adult responses (e.g. caring)

Critical period: the period after birth (0-2 years) in which babies are best adapted to form attachments

Monotropy - a baby forms one special attachment which is different and more important than others

Internal working model: the mental framework/representation of a child’s first attachment

Question 22

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: BOWLBY’S THEORY
Outline the following aspect of Bowlby’s (1988) monotropic theory:

Adaptive

Answer 22

• attachment is an evolutionary behaviour which helps with survival
• attachment is an innate process; a child is born with biological abilities to seek out an attachment figure and be close to them
• helps with survival because it helps meet the child’s needs as well as protect them from danger

Question 23

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: BOWLBY’S THEORY
Outline the following aspect of Bowlby’s (1988) monotropic theory:

Social releasers

Answer 23

• behaviours or signals from the infant that draw an adult to give them their attention
• e.g. smiling, cooing, gripping a hand
• initiates a reciprocal, two-way interaction between the infant and the caregiver
• these are instinctive behaviours (don’t need to be learned)

Question 24

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: BOWLBY’S THEORY
Outline the following aspect of Bowlby’s (1988) monotropic theory:

Critical period

Answer 24

• the time frame for a baby to form an attachment with their caregiver
• thought to be 2.5 years old
• if no attachment is formed in this time, there will be lasting consequences for the child’s development: socially, emotionally and intellectually

Question 25

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: BOWLBY’S THEORY
Outline the following aspect of Bowlby’s (1988) monotropic theory:

Monotropy

Answer 25

• the importance of the child’s attachment to one caregiver (usually the mother)
• more important and significant than the relationships they may form with other people

Question 26

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: BOWLBY’S THEORY
Outline the following aspect of Bowlby’s (1988) monotropic theory:

Internal working model

Answer 26

• a baby’s first attachment with their caregiver forms a framework/model/template for all their future relationships
• a baby’s relationship with their mother becomes a model for what to expect from others
• includes expectations for romantic relationships and parental relationships (basing their parenting behaviour on their relationship with their parents

Question 27

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: BOWLBY’S THEORY
Evaluate Bowlby’s (1988) monotropic theory

Answer 27

STRENGTH: supports role of social releasers
- clear evidence that cute baby behaviours are designed the elicit interactions from caregivers
- Brazelton et al (1975): observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers; researchers then told caregivers to ignore social releasers, and the baby became increasingly distressed, some eventually curled up and lay motionless
~~> illustrates role of social releasers in emotional development and suggests they’re important for development of attachments

STRENGTH: support for internal working model
- Bailey et al (2007): assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their one-year-old babies
- researchers measured mothers’ attachment to their own primary attachment figures
- researchers assessed quality of attachment of the babies
- found that mothers with poor attachment to their own primary attachment figure were more likely to have poorly attached babies
————> COUNTERPOINT: other influences on social development
- genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviours in both babies and adults
- Kornienko (2016): these differences could also affect their parenting abilities
~~> Bowlby may have overestimated the importance of the internal working model in social behaviour and parenting at the expense of other factors

LIMITATION: concept of monotropy lacks validity
- Schaffer and Emerson (1964): although most babies did attach to one person at first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time
- although the first attachment does appear to have a particularly strong influence on later behaviour, this may simply mean it is stronger, not necessarily different in quality from the child’s other attachment
- e.g. other attachments to family members provide all the same key qualities (emotional support, safe base etc)
~~> Bowlby may be incorrect that there is a unique quality and importance to the child’s primary attachment

Question 28

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: BOWLBY’S THEORY
Match the researcher to the research

Bowlby (1958)
Brazelton et al (1975)
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
Bailey et al (2007)
Kornienko (2016)
___________________________

• observed babies trigger social interactions with adults using social releasers, adults were instructed to ignore them, babies became increasingly distressed (support for social releases)
• genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviour in both babies and adults, these differences could also affect their parenting ability
• their theory is described as monotropic because they placed great emphasis on a child’s attachment to one particular caregiver which is more important than others
• assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their one-year-old babies, as well as the mothers’ attachment type to their own primary caregivers; found that mothers’ own ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their internal working models (support for internal working model)
• although most babies did attach to one person at first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time; although the first attachment has a strong influence on later behaviour, this may simply mean it is stronger, not necessarily different in quality from other attachments

Answer 28

Bowlby (1958): their theory is described as monotropic because they placed great emphasis on a child’s attachment to one particular caregiver which is more important than others

Brazelton et al (1975): observed babies trigger social interactions with adults using social releasers, adults were instructed to ignore them, babies became increasingly distressed (support for social releasers)

Schaffer and Emerson (1964): although most babies did attach to one person at first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time; although the first attachment has a strong influence on later behaviour, this may simply mean it is stronger, not necessarily different in quality from other attachments

Bailey et al (2007): assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their one-year-old babies, as well as the mothers’ attachment type to their own primary caregivers; found that mothers’ own ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their internal working models (support for internal working model)

Kornienko (2016): genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviour in both babies and adults, these differences could also affect their parenting ability

Question 29

TYPES OF ATTACHMENT
Outline the procedure of Mary Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ (1978)
(Outline each stage and what was measured at each stage)

Answer 29

Baby and caregiver enter an unfamiliar playroom

1) baby is encouraged to explore
- tests exploration and secure base

2) a stranger comes in, talks to the caregiver and approaches baby
- tests stranger anxiety

3) caregiver leaves baby and stranger together
- tests separation and stranger anxiety

4) caregiver returns and stranger leaves
- tests reunion behaviour and exploration/secure base

5) caregiver leaves baby alone
- tests separation anxiety

6) stranger returns
- tests stranger anxiety

7) caregiver returns and is reunited with baby
- tests reunion behaviour

Question 30

TYPES OF ATTACHMENT: Mary Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ (1978)

What do the following terms mean?

• Proximity-seeking
• Exploration and secure-base behaviour
• Stranger anxiety
• Separation anxiety
• Response to reunion

Answer 30

• Proximity-seeking: a baby with a good-quality attachment will stay fairly close to a caregiver
• Exploration and secure-base behaviour: good attachment enables a baby to feel confident to explore, using their caregiver as a secure base
• Stranger anxiety: one of the signs of becoming closely attached is a display of anxiety when a stranger approaches
• Separation anxiety: another sign of becoming attached is to protest at separation from the caregiver
• Response to reunion: babies who are securely attached greet the caregiver’s return with pleasure and seek comfort

Question 31

TYPES OF ATTACHMENT
Outline the findings of Mary Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ (1978)
(3 types of attachment)

Answer 31

SECURE ATTACHMENT (Type B)
- explore happily but regularly go back to caregiver (proximity-seeking and SECURE base-behaviour)
- usually show moderate separation distress and moderate stranger anxiety
- securely attached babies require and accept comfort from the caregiver in the reunion stage
- 60-75% British babies

INSECURE-AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT (Type A)
- explore freely but do not seek proximity or show secure-base behaviour
- little to no reaction when caregiver leaves and little stranger anxiety
- make little effort to make contact when caregiver leaves and returns and may even AVOID such contact
- 20-25% British babies

INSECURE-RESISTANT ATTACHMENT (Type C)
- seek greater proximity than others and so explore less
- high levels of stranger and separation distress but RESIST comfort when reunited with caregiver
- 3% British babies

Question 32

TYPES OF ATTACHMENT
Evaluate Mary Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ (1978)

Answer 32

STRENGTH: predictive validity
- predicts a number or aspects of the baby’s later development
- McCormick et al (2016), Kokkinos (2007): babies and toddlers assessed as Type B (secure) tend to have better outcomes than others, both in later childhood and adulthood; in childhood this means better achievement in school and less involvement in bullying
- Ward et al (2006) securely attached babies tend to go on to have better mental health in adulthood
- those assessed to having Type C (insecure-resistant) and those not falling into Types A, B or C tend to have the worst outcomes
~~> Strange Situation measures something real and meaningful in a baby’s development
————-> COUNTERPOINT: not all psychologists think that attachment is that ‘something’ that is important that is associated with later development
- Kagan (1982): suggested genetically-influenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment behaviour in the Strange Situation and later development
~~> SS may not actually measure attachment

STRENGTH: good inter-rater reliability
- Bick et al (2012): found high inter-rater reliability of the observers in the SS, they agreed on found attachment types in 94% cases
- due to the controlled conditions of the procedure, and because attachment behaviours (proximity-seeking and stranger anxiety) involve large movements and are therefore easy to observe
- e.g. anxious babies cry and crawl away from strangers
~~> can be confident that attachment type as assessed by the SS doesn’t depend on subjective judgements

LIMITATION: culture-specific
- SS developed in Britain and US
- only valid for certain cultures (Europe and US)
- babies in different cultures experience different things which will influence how they respond to the SS
- Japanese case study by Takahashi (1986): high levels of separation anxiety was classed as insecure-resistant, but not appropriately since mother-baby separation is very rare in Japanese culture
~~> difficult to know what the SS is measuring when used outside US and Europe

Question 33

TYPES OF ATTACHMENT
Match the researcher to the research

Ainsworth and Bell (1970)
McCormick et al (2016) & Kokkinos (2007)
Ward et al (2006)
Kagan (1982)
Bick et al (2012)
Takahashi (1986 & 1990)
___________________________

• tested inter-rater reliability for SS for a team of observers, found agreement on attachment type on 94% cases (high)
• study in which babies displayed high levels of separation anxiety and so were classified as insecure-resistant, but they suggest that the anxiety response was not due to high rates of attachment insecurity but due to the unusual nature of baby-mother separation (very rare in Japan)
• genetically-influenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment behaviour in SS and later development
• securely attached babies tend to go on to have better mental health in adulthood
• developed the Strange Situation to observe key attachment behaviours as a means of assessing the quality of a baby’s attachment to a caregiver
• secure babies and toddlers tend to have better outcomes than others, such as better achievement in school and less involvement in bullying

Answer 33

Ainsworth and Bell (1970): developed the Strange Situation to observe key attachment behaviours as a means of assessing the quality of a baby’s attachment to a caregiver

McCormick et al (2016) & Kokkinos (2007): secure babies and toddlers tend to have better outcomes than others, such as better achievement in school and less involvement in bullying

Ward et al (2006): securely attached babies tend to go on to have better mental health in adulthood

Kagan (1982): genetically-influenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment behaviour in SS and later development

Bick et al (2012): tested inter-rater reliability for SS for a team of observers, found agreement on attachment type on 94% cases (high)

Takahashi (1986 & 1990): study in which babies displayed high levels of separation anxiety and so were classified as insecure-resistant, but they suggest that the anxiety response was not due to high rates of attachment insecurity but due to the unusual nature of baby-mother separation (very rare in Japan)

Question 34

CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
Outline the aim of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988) research

Answer 34

van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) conducted a study to look at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries to assess cultural variation.

they also looked at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture.

Question 35

CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
Outline the procedure of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988) research

Answer 35

procedure:
- located 32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation had been used to investigate proportions of babies with different attachment types
- conducted in 8 countries (15 in US)
- results from 1990 children
- date from these 32 studies was meta-analysed

Question 36

CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
Outline the findings of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988) research

Answer 36

findings:
- wide variation
- secure attachment was most common in all countries
- 75% secure attachments in Britain, 50% in China
- greatest variations between results of studies were WITHIN countries rather than BETWEEN countries

INDIVIDUALIST CULTURES (UK, US, Germany):
- rates of insecure-resistant were similar to Ainsworth’s original sample (all under 14%)

COLLECTIVIST CULTURES (Israel, Japan, China):
- rates of insecure-resistant were above 25%
- rates of insecure-avoidant were reduced

Question 37

CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
Outline the research of the Italian Study by Simonelli et al (2014)

Answer 37

AIM: to investigate whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types still match those found in previous studies

PROCEDURE:
- used Strange Situation
- 76 babies aged 12 months

FINDINGS:
- 50% secure (lower than in previous studies)
- 36% insecure-avoidant (higher than in previous studies)

CONCLUSIONS:
- suggested to be caused by increasing numbers of mothers of very young children working long hours and using professional childcare
- findings suggest patterns of attachment types are not static but vary in line with cultural change

Question 38

CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
Outline the Conclusions of research into cultural variations in attachment types, including that of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988) research

Answer 38

CONCLUSIONS:
- secure attachment seems to be the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal, and this type is the universal norm
- cultural practices influence attachment type

Question 39

CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
Evaluate research into cultural variations of attachment

Answer 39

STRENGTH: Indigenous researchers (from the same culture as the ptps)
- van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg included research by a German team (Grossmann et al (1981)) and Takahashi (1986) who is Japanese
- potential problems of cross-culture research can be avoided (e.g. language barriers/miscommunication of instructions/stereotype bias)
~~> increased validity (excellent chance of successful communication between researchers and ptps)
———-> COUNTERPOINT: not true of all research
- Morelli and Tronick (1991) were outsiders from America studying child-rearing and patterns of attachment in Zaire
- their data may have been affected by difficulties in gathering data from ptps outside their own culture
~~> reduced validity (data from some counties may have been affected by bias and difficulty in cross-culture communication)

LIMITATION: confounding variables
- methodology not matched across countries when comparing in meta-analyses
- confounding variables: poverty, social class, urban/rural make-up, age of ptps
- environmental confounding variables: size of room, availability of interesting toys (babies may appear to be exploring more in studies conducted in smaller rooms with attractive toys compared to large, bare rooms)
- less visible proximity-seeking because of room size might make a child more likely to be classed as insecure-avoidant
~~> studying attachment behaviour in non-matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment

LIMITATION: imposed etic (trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context)
- emic = cultural uniqueness
- etic = cross-cultural universality
- imposed etic = assuming one idea/technique that works in one cultural context will work in another
- e.g. in SS in US or UK lack of affection on reunion may indicate insecure-avoidant attachment, but in Germany, it would be interpreted as independence rather than insecurity, so that part of the study wouldn’t work in Germany
~~> behaviours measured by SS have different meanings in different cultural contexts, comparing them is meaningless

Question 40

CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
Match the researcher to the research

van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg

Question 41

BOWLBY’S THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION
Match the researcher to the research

Bowlby (1944)
Goldfarb (1947)
Lévy et al (2003)
Rutter (1981)
Koluchová (1976)
__________________________________________________

• studied the case of the Czech twins who, despite being severely emotionally damaged from trauma during the ‘critical period’, recovered fully in their teens after excellent care
• made an important distinction between deprivation and privation; suggested the association that Bowlby made between long-term damage and deprivation was more likely to be a result of privation, not deprivation
• examined the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation in his 44 thieves study
• in his wartime study, he found lower IQ in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and thus had a higher standard of emotional care
• showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development, though not other aspects of development (supportive evidence for maternal deprivation theory)

Answer 41

Bowlby (1944): - examined the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation in his 44 thieves study

Goldfarb (1947): - in his wartime study, he found lower IQ in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and thus had a higher standard of emotional care

Lévy et al (2003): - showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development, though not other aspects of development (supportive evidence for maternal deprivation theory)

Rutter (1981): - made an important distinction between deprivation and privation; suggested the association that Bowlby made between long-term damage and deprivation was more likely to be a result of privation, not deprivation

Koluchová (1976): - studied the case of the Czech twins who, despite being severely emotionally damaged from trauma during the ‘critical period’, recovered fully in their teens after excellent care

Question 42

BOWLBY’S THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION
Outline the following aspect of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation:
Separation vs deprivation

Answer 42

• separation becomes a problem if the child becomes deprived of emotional care (can happen even if the mother is present and, e.g. depressed)
• brief separations, where the child is with a substitute caregiver who can provide emotional care, are not harmful to development but long-term separation can lead to deprivation

Question 43

BOWLBY’S THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION
Outline the following aspect of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation:
Critical period

Answer 43

• critical period for psychological development: 2 1/2 years
• if deprivation occurs in this time then psychological damage is inevitable
• continuing risk up to age of 5

Question 44

intellectual and emotional

BOWLBY’S THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION
Outline the following aspect of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation:
Effects on development

Answer 44

INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
- prolonged deprivation => delayed intellectual development (characterised by abnormally low IQ)
- supported by adoption studies: Goldfarb (1947)
–> found lower IQ in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered (and thus had a higher standard of emotional care

EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
- affectionless psychopathy = inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others
- prevents a person from developing fulfilling relationships
- associated with criminality (cannot feel remorse for their actions or appreciate the feelings of victims)

Question 45

BOWLBY’S THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION
Outline Bowlby’s (1944) 44 thieves study

Answer 45

AIM: to investigate the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation

PROCEDURE:
- 44 criminal teens accused of stealing
- all thieves were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy (characterised as lack of guilt, lack of empathy for their victims)
- families were also interviewed to establish whether thieves had prolonged early separation from mothers
- sample was compared to a control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people

FINDINGS
- 14/44 thieves were affectionless psychopaths
- 12 of these had experienced prolonged early separation from mothers
- however, only 5 of the remaining 30 thieves had experienced separation
- only 2 ptps in control group had experienced long separations

CONCLUSION
- early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy

Question 46

BOWLBY’S THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION
Evaluate Bowlby’s (1953) theory of maternal deprivation
(3 limitations, one strength)

Answer 46

LIMITATION: flawed evidence
- 44 thieves study is flawed because Bowly himself carried out both the interviews of the families and the assessments for affectionless psychopathy
- this left him open to bias (knew in advance who he expected to show signs of affectionless psychopathy
- Bowlby was also influenced by Goldfarb’s (1943) wartime orphanages study, which had confounding variables (or-hans had experienced early trauma and institutional care as well as prolonged separation from their primary caregivers
~~> Bowlby’s sources of evidence for maternal deprivation had serious flaws and would not be taken seriously today
————-> COUNTERPOINT: new (moderate) supportive research
- Lévy et al (2003): showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development, though not other aspects of development
~~> although Bowlby relied on flawed evidence to support his theory of maternal deprivation, there are other sources of evidence for his ideas

LIMITATION: confusion of deprivation and privation
- Rutter (1981): drew an important distinction between these two types of early experience
- deprivation = loss of primary attachment after a negative experience
- privation = failure to form any attachment in the first place (may happen when children are brought up in institutional care)
- Rutter pointed out that the severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is more likely to be the result of privation (so the children studied by Goldfarb may have been ‘prived’ rather than deprived
- similarly, many of the children in the 44 thieves study had disrupted early lives (time in hospital) and may never have formed strong attachments

LIMITATION: critical vs sensitive periods
- evidence to suggest that good quality aftercare can prevent the damage that Bowlby had said was “inevitable”
- Koluchová (1976): Czech twins; experienced severe physical and emotional abuse from 18 months to 7 years old
- although they were severely damaged emotionally by their experience, they received excellent care and by their teens they had recovered fully
~~> lasting harm is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation; the ‘critical period’ is therefore better seen as a ‘sensitive period’

Question 47

ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES: INSTITUTIONALISATION
Match the researcher to the research

Rutter et al (2011)
Kennedy et al (2016)
Zeanah et al (2005)
Langton (2006)
___________________________________________

• in ERA study, ADHD was more common in samples ages 15 and 22-25
• followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans as part of the ERA study, to investigate the extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions
• studying Romanian orphans has improved understanding of effects of early institutional care and how to prevent the worst of these effects
• conducted Bucharest Early Intervention (BEI) project to assess attachment in children who had spent most of their lives in institutional care (90% on average)

Answer 47

Rutter et al (2011): followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans as part of the ERA study, to investigate the extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions

Kennedy et al (2016): in ERA study, ADHD was more common in samples ages 15 and 22-25

Zeanah et al (2005): conducted Bucharest Early Intervention (BEI) project to assess attachment in children who had spent most of their lives in institutional care (90% on average)

Langton (2006): studying Romanian orphans has improved understanding of effects of early institutional care and how to prevent the worst of these effects

Question 48

ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES: INSTITUTIONALISATION
Outline the aim and procedure of Rutter et al’s (2011) research as part of the English and Romanian Adoptee (ERA) study (orphans had been adopted by families in the UK)

Answer 48

AIM: To investigate the extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions

PROCEDURE
- followed 165 Romanian orphans
- physical, emotional and cognitive development measured at ages 4, 6, 11, 15 and 22-25
- control group of 52 children from UK adopted around the same time

Question 49

ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES: INSTITUTIONALISATION
Outline the findings of Rutter et al’s (2011) research as part of the English and Romanian Adoptee (ERA) study (orphans had been adopted by families in the UK)

Answer 49

FINDINGS
- upon arrival to UK, children showed signs of delayed intellectual development and the majority were severely undernourished
- @ 11yrs, adopted children showed differential rates of recovery that were related to their age of adoption
- the mean IQ of those adopted before age of 6 months was 102, compared to 86 for those adopted between 6 months and 2yrs, and 77 for those adopted after 2yrs
- Kennedy et al (2016): ADHD was more common in 15 and 22-25-year-old samples
- difference in outcome related to whether adoption took place before or after 6 months: after 6 months => disinhibited attachment (attention-seeking, clinginess, social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards familiar and unfamiliar adults), whereas before 6 months => rarely disinhibited attachment

Question 50

ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES: INSTITUTIONALISATION
Outline the aim and procedure of Zeanah et al’s (2005) research

Answer 50

• conducted Bucharest Early Intervention (BEI) project
  AIM: To assess attachment in children who had spent most of their lives in institutional care (90% on average)

PROCEDURE
- 95 Romanian children aged 12-31 months
- compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution
- attachment type was measured using SS
- also, carers were asked about unusual social behaviour to measure disinhibited attachment

Question 51

ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES: INSTITUTIONALISATION
Outline the findings of Zeanah et al’s (2005) research

Answer 51

FINDINGS
- 74% control group were securely attached
- 19% of institutional group were securely attached
- description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to 20% of controls

Question 52

ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES: INSTITUTIONALISATION
Outline the effects of institutionalisation

Answer 52

DISINHIBITED ATTACHMENT
- social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards both familiar and unfamiliar adults (being equally affectionate and friendly towards strangers and familiar people)
(—> highly unusual, most children in 2nd year show stranger anxiety)
- clinginess
- attention-seeking
- Rutter explained disinhibited attachment as an adaption to living with multiple caregivers during the critical/sensitive period
- in institutions, a child might have 50 carers but doesn’t spend enough time with any one of them to be able to form a secure attachment

INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
- most children showed signs of intellectual disability when they arrived in UK,
- most of those adopted before 6 months had caught up by age 4
- like emotional development, damage to intellectual development as a result of institutionalisation can be recovered, provided adoption takes place before 6 months (when attachments start to form)

Question 53

ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES: INSTITUTIONALISATION
Evaluate the Romanian orphan studies

Answer 53

STRENGTH: real-world application
- allows improvement of conditions for children growing up outside their family home
- Langton (2006): studying Romanian orphans has improved understanding of effects of early institutional care and how to prevent the worst of these effects
- => improved conditions, e.g. we now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child, instead having one or two ‘key workers’ (central role in emotional care)
- institutional care now seen as undesirable option
- considerable effort made to accommodate such children in foster care or adoption
~~> children in institutional care have a chance to develop normal attachments and disinhibited attachment is avoided

STRENGTH: fewer confounding variables
- many orphan studies before Romanian orpan studies (during WW2), but these orphans had experienced varying degrees of trauma
- difficult to disentangle the effects of neglect, physical abuse and bereavement from those of institutional care
- however the Romanian orphanages had mostly been handed over by loving parents who couldn’t afford to keep them
~~> gives study higher internal validity (results were much less likely to be confounded by other negative early experiences)
————> COUNTERPOINT: studying children from Romanian orphanages may have introduced other confounding variables
- the care in these institutions was remarkably poor (little intellectual stimulation or comfort given)
~~> the harmful effects seen in studies of Romanian orphans may represent the effects of POOR institutional care rather than institutional care

LIMITATION: lack of data on adult development
- latest data from ERA Study looked at the children in their early-to-mid-20s, so we don’t currently have data to answer Qs about long-term effects of early institutional care
- e.g. the life-long prevalence of mental health issues? the ptps’ success in forming and maintaining adult romantic and parental relationships?
- longitudinal design of the study => will take a long time to gather the data
~~> it will be some time before we know the long-term effects of early institutional care , it is possible that late-adopted orphans may ‘catch up’

Question 54

INFLUENCE OF EARLY ATTACHMENT ON LATER RELATIONSHIPS
Match the researcher to the research

Bowlby (1969)
Kerns (1994)
Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998)
Hazan and Shaver (1987)
McCarthy (1999)
Bailey et al (2007)
Fearon and Roisman (2017)
Becker-Stoll et al (2008)

___________________________________________

• secure children were very unlikely to be involved in in bullying; insecure-avoidant children were most likely to be victims; insecure-resistant children were most likely to be bullies
• considered attachments of 99 mothers to their babies (using SS) and to their own mothers (using adult attachment interview). majority of women had the same attachment classification to both their babies and their own mothers
• securely attached babies tend to go on to form the best quality childhood friendships; insecurely attached babies later have friendship difficulties
• a baby’s first relationship with their primary attachment figure leads to a mental representation of this relationship
• analysed 620 replies to a ‘love quiz’ printed in an American newspaper. found that securely attached most likely to have good, long-lasting romantic experiences, whereas avoidant respondents tended to reveal jealousy and fear of intimacy
• studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when they were babies to establish their early attachment type. found that: those assessed as securely attached babies had the best adult friendships and romantic relationships; insecure-avoidant struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships; and insecure-resistant struggled to maintain friendships
• reviewed evidence and concluded that early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional well-being and attachment to own children
• Regensburg longitudinal study: followed 43 individuals from age 1. @ 16yrs, attachment was assessed using the adult attachment interview and there was no evidence of continuity

Answer 54

Bowlby (1969): a baby’s first relationship with their primary attachment figure leads to a mental representation of this relationship

Kerns (1994): securely attached babies tend to go on to form the best quality childhood friendships; insecurely attached babies later have friendship difficulties

Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998): secure children were very unlikely to be involved in in bullying; insecure-avoidant children were most likely to be victims; insecure-resistant children were most likely to be bullies

Hazan and Shaver (1987): analysed 620 replies to a ‘love quiz’ printed in an American newspaper. found that securely attached most likely to have good, long-lasting romantic experiences, whereas avoidant respondents tended to reveal jealousy and fear of intimacy

McCarthy (1999): studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when they were babies to establish their early attachment type. found that: those assessed as securely attached babies had the best adult friendships and romantic relationships; insecure-avoidant struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships; and insecure-resistant struggled to maintain friendships

Bailey et al (2007): considered attachments of 99 mothers to their babies (using SS) and to their own mothers (using adult attachment interview). majority of women had the same attachment classification to both their babies and their own mothers

Fearon and Roisman (2017): reviewed evidence and concluded that early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional well-being and attachment to own children

Becker-stoll et al (2008): Regensburg longitudinal study: followed 43 individuals from age 1. @ 16yrs, attachment was assessed using the adult attachment interview and there was no evidence of continuity

Question 55

INFLUENCE OF EARLY ATTACHMENT ON LATER RELATIONSHIPS
Outline what is meant by the internal working model.
What will happen when the child’s first relationship is loving?
What if the first attachment had bad experiences?

Answer 55

• Bowlby (1969): a baby’s first relationship with their primary attachment figure leads to a mental representation of this relationship
• acts as a framework/template for future childhood and adult relationships
• quality of baby’s first attachment is crucial, template will powerfully affect the nature of future relationships
• first experience is loving and reliable => baby assumes this is how relationships are meant to be, and will seek out functional relationships and behave functionally within them
  —–> i.e. without being too uninvolved or emotionally close (trait of insecure-avoidant attachment) or being controlling and argumentative (insecure-resistant attachment)
• a child with bad experiences in their first attachment will bring these bad experiences to bear on later relationships
• => may even struggle to form relationships in the first place; may not have appropriately withing relationships, displaying insecure-avoidant or insecure-resistant behaviour towards friends and partners

Question 56

INFLUENCE OF EARLY ATTACHMENT ON LATER RELATIONSHIPS
Outline how attachment types influence relationships in childhood

Answer 56

• Kerns (1994): securely attached babies tend to go on to form the best quality childhood friendships
• Kerns (1994): insecurely attached babies later have friendship difficulties
• Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998): secure children were very unlikely to be involved in in bullying; insecure-avoidant children were most likely to be victims; insecure-resistant children were most likely to be bullies

Question 57

INFLUENCE OF EARLY ATTACHMENT ON LATER RELATIONSHIPS
Outline how attachment types influence romantic relationships in adulthood:
Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) research

Answer 57

Hazan and Shaver (1987): love quiz
PROCEDURE
- analysed 620 replies to a ‘love quiz’ printed in an American newspaper
- 1st section assessed respondents current/most important relationship
- 2nd section assessed general love experiences (e.g. number of partners)
- 3rd section assessed attachment type
FINDINGS
- 56% respondents were securely attached
- 25% insecure-avoidant
- 19% insecure-resistant
- securely attached most likely to have good, long-lasting romantic experiences
- avoidant respondents tended to reveal jealousy and fear of intimacy

Question 58

INFLUENCE OF EARLY ATTACHMENT ON LATER RELATIONSHIPS
Outline how attachment types influence romantic relationships in adulthood:
McCarthy’s (1999) research

Answer 58

PROCEDURE:
- studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when they were babies to establish their early attachment type

FINDINGS:
- those assessed as securely attached babies had the best adult friendships and romantic relationships
- insecure-avoidant struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships
- insecure-resistant struggled to maintain friendships

Question 59

INFLUENCE OF EARLY ATTACHMENT ON LATER RELATIONSHIPS
Outline how attachment types influence parental relationships in adulthood

Answer 59

• people tend to base their parenting style on their internal working model
• so attachment tends to be passed on through generations of a family
• Bailey et al (2007): considered attachments of 99 mothers to their babies (using SS) and to their own mothers (using adult attachment interview). majority of women had the same attachment classification to both their babies and their own mothers

Question 60

INFLUENCE OF EARLY ATTACHMENT ON LATER RELATIONSHIPS
Evaluate the research into attachment and later relationships
(one strength, 3 limitations)

Answer 60

STRENGTH: research support
- Fearon and Roisman (2017): reviewed evidence and concluded that early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional well-being and attachment to own children
- insecure-avoidant attachment seems to convey fairly mild disadvantages for any aspect of development
- disorganised attachment is strongly associated with later mental disorders
~~> secure attachment as baby appears to convey advantages for future development, while disorganised attachment appears to seriously disadvantage children
————-> COUNTERPOINT: not all evidence supports the existence of close links between early attachment and later development
- Becker-stoll et al (2008): Regensburg longitudinal study followed 43 individuals from age 1
- @16yrs, attachment was assessed using the adult attachment interview and there was no evidence of continuity
~~> not clear to what extent the quality of early attachment really predicts later development (may be other important factors)

LIMITATION: validity issues with retrospective studies (early attachment is assessed retrospectively)
- researchers usually ask adolescent or adult ptps Qs about their relationship with parents and identify attachment type from that, rather than assessing attachment type as a baby and revisiting that person later in life (longitudinal (long-term) study)
- validity issues: 1) asking Qs relies on honesty and accurate perceptions from ptps, 2) hard to know whether what is being assessed is early attachment or adult attachment
~~> validity challenged (measures of early attachment used in most studies may be confounded with other factors, making them meaningless)

LIMITATION: confounding variables
- some studies do assess attachment in infancy, meaning the assessment of early attachment is valid
- but even these studies may have validity problems because associations between attachment quality and later development may be affected by confounding variables (e.g. parenting style, genetically-influenced personality)
~~> we can never be entirely sure that it is early attachment and not some other factor that is influencing later development