Attachment Flashcards
Reciprocity definition:
a description of how two people interact. Caregiver-infant interaction is a reciprocal in that both caregiver and infant respond to each other’s signals and each elicits from the other
interactional synchrony definition:
caregiver and baby reflect both the actions and emotions of the other and do this in a co-ordinated (synchronised) way
what is attachment?
a close two way emotional bond between two individuals in which each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security
how long does attachment take to develop?
a few months
behaviours of attachment:
- proximity- people try to stay physically close to their attachment figure
- separation distress- people show signs of anxiety when an attachment figure leaves their presence
- secure - base behaviour - even when we are independent of our attachment figures we tend to make regular contact with them. babies display secure-base behaviour when they regularly return to their attachment figure while playing
the look of love definition:
a two way emotional bond where both individuals gain emotional security
reciprocity (AO1)
Early interactions between babies and caregivers are characterized by intense, pleasurable reciprocity.
This means a back-and-forth exchange where each person responds to and elicits a response from the other (like a “turn-taking” conversation).
This reciprocal interaction is crucial for healthy communication and bonding
Alert phase (AO1)
Babies have periodic alert phases’ where they signal (e.g. eye contact) that they are ready for interaction.
- mothers typically pick up on and respond to their baby’s alertness around 2/3 of the time (Feldman and Eidelman 2007),
although this varies according to the skill of the mother and external factors such as stress (Finegood et al. 2016).
- from around three months this interaction tends to become increasingly frequent and involves both mother and baby paying close attention to each other’s verbal signals and facial expressions (Feldman 2007).
Active involvement (AO1)
Traditional views of childhood have portrayed babies in a passive role, receiving care from an adult. However, it seems that babies as well as caregivers take an active role
Both caregiver + baby can initiate interactions and appear to take turns in doing so.
T. Berry Brazelton et al. (1975) described this interaction as a dance as it is like a couples dance where each partner responds to the other person’s moves.
how do two people show Interactional synchrony? (AO1)
Two people are said to be synchronised when they carry out the same action simultaneously so can be defined as the temporal co-ordination of micro-level social behaviour (Feldman 2007)
- takes place when caregiver and baby interact in such a way that their actions and emotions mirror the other.
synchrony begins (AO1)
Andrew Meltzoff and Keith Moore (1977) observed beginnings of interactional synchrony in babies as young as two weeks old.
- An adult displayed one of three facial expressions or one of three distinctive gestures.
- The baby’s response was filmed and labelled by independent observers. Babies’ expression and gestures were more likely to mirror those of the adults more than chance would predict i.e. there was a significant association.
Interactional synchrony: Importance of attachment (AO1)
interactional synchrony is important for the development of caregiver-infant attachment.
- Russell Isabella et al. (1989) observed 30 mothers and babies together and assessed degree of synchrony.
- also assessed the quality of mother-baby attachment. They found that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-baby attachment (e.g. the emotional intensity of the relationship).
filmed observations (AO3)
strength: usually filmed in laboratory so other activity that may distract a baby can be controlled
- using films means observations can be recorded + analysed later so it is unlikely that researchers will miss key behaviours
- more than one observer can record data and so high inter-rater reliability
strength: babies don’t know they are being observed so behaviour does not change in response to observation (this is a main problem for overt observations) so data collected will have good reliability + validity
difficulty observing babies (AO3)
limitation: hard to interpret baby’s behaviour as they lack coordination and much of their bodies are almost immobile
movements being observed are just small hand movements or subtle changes in expression.
- It is also difficult to determine what is taking place from the baby’s perspective. e.g we cannot know whether a movement such as a hand twitch is random or triggered by something the caregiver has done.
so we cannot be certain that the behaviours seen in caregiver-infant interactions have a special meaning.
Developmental importance (AO3)
limitation: observing a behaviour does not tell us its developmental importance.
Ruth Feldman (2012) points out that ideas like synchrony (and by implication reciprocity) only give shows patterns of observable caregiver and baby behaviours. These are robust phenomena as they can be reliably observed, but they still may not be particularly useful in understanding child development as it does not tell us the purpose of these behaviours.
- so we cannot be certain from observational research alone that reciprocity and synchrony are important for a child’s development.
Early interactions not important counterpoint (AO3)
There is evidence from other lines of research to suggest that early interactions are important.
- Isabella et al (1989) found interactional synchrony predicted the development of a good quality attachment.
- so caregiver-infant interaction is probably important in development.
Practical value versus ethics (AO3)
Research into early caregiver infant interaction has practical applications in parenting skills training.
- Rebecca Crotwell et al. (2013) found a 10-minute Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) improved interactional synchrony in 20 low-income mothers and their pre-school children.
-however research into caregiver-infant interaction is socially sensitive as it can be used to argue that when a mother returns to work soon after having a baby this may risk damaging their baby’s development.
Stages of attachment definition:
Many developmental theories identify a sequence of qualitatively different behaviours linked to specific ages. In the case of ‘stages of attachment’ qualitatively different infant (baby) behaviours are linked to specific ages, and all babies go through them in the same order.
Multiple attachments definition:
Attachments to two or more people. Most babies appear to develop multiple attachments once they have formed one strong attachment to one of their carers.
Schaffer’s stages of attachment
Rudolf Schaffer and Peggy Emerson (1964) studied attachment behaviours of babies
- findings led them to develop an account of how attachment behaviours change as a baby gets older + proposed that there were four identifiable stages of attachment, a sequence which is observed in all babies.
Stage 1: Asocial stage (AO1)
In baby’s first few weeks of life its observable behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects is fairly similar - hence the term ‘asocial
- However, Schaffer and Emerson did not believe that it is entirely asocial because even at this stage babies show signs that they prefer to be with other people + tend to show a preference for the company of familiar people and are more easily comforted by them
- baby is forming bonds with certain people and these form the basis of later attachments.
Stage 2: Indiscriminate attachment (AO1)
From 2 to 7 months babies start to display more obvious and observable social behaviours
- show a clear preference for being with other humans rather than inanimate objects
- recognise and prefer the company of familiar peopie.
However, at this stage babies usually accept cuddles and comfort from any person - hence the term indiscriminate. They do not usually show separation anxiety when caregivers leave their presence or stranger anxiety in the presence of unfamiliar people
Stage 3: Specific Attachment (AO1)
around 7 months: majority of babies start to display signs of attachment towards one particular person
e.g stranger anxiety, especially when attachment figure is absent, separation anxiety
baby has formed a specific attachment. This person with whom the attachment is formed is called the primary attachment figure who is not necessarily the individual the child spends most time with but the one who offers the most interaction and responds to the baby’s signals’ with the most skill. This is the baby’s mother in 65% of cases.
Stage 4 Multiple attachments (AO1)
Shortly after signs of attachment behaviour towards one person they usually extend this behaviour to multiple attachments with other people with whom they regularly spend time (secondary attachments). Schaffer and Emerson observed that 29% of the children formed secondary attachments within a month of forming a primary attachment. By the age of one year the majority of babies had developed multiple attachments.
what was Schaffer and Emerson’s research based on?
(1964) based their stage theory (above) on an observational study of the formation of early infant-adult attachments.
Schaffer and Emerson procedure (AO1)
- specification does not require this
The study involved 60 babies - 31 male, 29 female. All were from Glasgow and the majority were from skilled working-class families. Researchers visited babies and mothers in their own homes every month for the first year and again at 18 months.
The researchers asked the mothers questions about the kind of protest their babies showed in seven everyday separations, e.g. adult leaving the room (a measure of separation anxiety). This was designed to measure the babies’ attachment. The researchers also assessed stranger anxiety - the babies anxiety response to unfamiliar people.
Schaffer and Emerson findings (AO1) statistics:
pg 76
Shaffer’s stages of attachment external validity (AO3)
strength: good external validity
Most of the observations (though not stranger anxiety) were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to the researchers. The alternative would have been to have researchers present to record observations. This might have distracted the babies or made them feel more anxious.
This means it is highly likely that the participants behaved naturally while being observed.
Shaffer’s stages of attachment counterpoint to external validity (AO3)
weakness: issues with asking the mothers to be the ‘observers. They were unlikely to be objective observers + might be biased of what they noticed and what they reported, e.g might not have noticed when their baby was showing signs of anxiety or they may have misremembered it.
- so even if babies behaved naturally their behaviour may not have been accurately recorded.
Schaffer Poor evidence for the asocial stage (AO3)
limitation: the validity of the measures they used to assess attachment in the asocial stage.
Young babies have poor co-ordination + immobile. If babies less than two months old felt anxiety in everyday situations they might have displayed this in quite subtle, hard-to-observe ways. This made it difficult for mothers to observe and report back to researchers on signs of anxiety and attachment in this age group.
- so babies may actually be quite social but, due to of flawed methods, they appear to be asocial.
Schaffer Real-world application (AO3):
strength: they have practical application in day care (where babies are cared for outside of their home by a non-family adult).
In the asocial and indiscriminate attachment stages day care is likely to be straightforward as babies can be comforted by any skilled adult. However, Schaffer and Emerson’s research tells us that day care, especially starting day care with an unfamiliar adult, may be problematic during the specific attachment stage.
This means that parents’ use of day care can be planned using Schaffer and Emerson’s stages.
Schaffer Generalisability (AO3):
strength: based their stage account on a large-scale study with some good design features.
weakness: only looked at one sample which had unique features in terms of the cultural and historical context
- 1960s working-class Glasgow. In other cultures, for example collectivist cultures, multiple attachments from a very early age are more the norm (van lJzendoorn 1993).
father definition:
In attachment research the father is anyone who takes on the role of the main male caregiver.
This can be but is not necessarily the biological father.
Caregiver versus attachment figure:
There is a difference between a primary caregiver and a primary attachment figure. A primary caregiver is the person who spends most time with a baby, caring for its needs. A primary attachment figure is the person to whom the baby has the strongest attachment. Often the same person fulfils the two roles but not always.
The role of the father (AO1):
Most attachment research has focused on mother and baby attachment, and the role of the father in the development of attachment has often been neglected. However, there is research on the specific roles that fathers play in development. (Note that a ‘father’ does not specially refer to a baby’s biological male parent -it refers to a child’s closest male caregiver. So this is about what male caregivers may contribute.)
Attachment to fathers (AO1)
- evidence suggests fathers are less likely to be babies first attachment figure
e.g Rudolf Schaffer and Peggy Emerson (1964) found that majority of babies first became attached to their mother around 7 months.
3% of cases: father was the first sole object of attachment. In 27% of cases the father was the joint first object of attachment with the mother.
- but most fathers go on to become important attachment figures. 75% of the babies studied by Schaffer and Emerson formed an attachment with their father by the age of 18 months. This was determined by the fact that the babies protested when their father walked away - a sign of attachment.
Distinctive role for fathers (AO1)
Klaus Grossmann et al. (2002) carried out a longitudinal study where babies’ attachments were studied until they were into their teens.
- researchers looked at both parents behaviour and its relationship to the quality of their baby’s later attachments to other people. Quality of a baby’s attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to attachments in adolescence.
This suggests that attachment to fathers is less important than attachment to mothers.
- but Grossmann et al. also found that the quality of fathers’ play with babies was related to the quality of adolescent attachments. suggesting fathers have a different role from mothers - one that is more to do with play and stimulation, and less to do with emotional development.
Fathers as primary attachment figures (AO1)
A distinction is made between primary and secondary attachment figures.
- there is more to primary attachment than being first - 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.
- there is some evidence to suggest that when fathers do take on the role of primary caregiver they are able to adopt the emotional role more typically associated with mothers
Tiffany Field (1978) (AO1)
Tiffany Field (1978) filmed 4-month-old babies in face-to-face interaction with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiver fathers. Primary caregiver fathers, like primary caregiver mothers, spent more time smiling. imitating and holding babies than the secondary caregiver fathers. Smiling, imitating and holding babies are all part of reciprocity and interactional synchrony which are part of the process of attachment formation (see research by Isabella et al. 1989).
So it seems that fathers have the potential to be the more emotion-focused primary attachment figure - they can provide the responsiveness required for a close emotional attachment but perhaps only express this when given the role of primary caregiver.
role of father Confusion over research questions (AO3)
limitation: lack of clarity over the question being asked.
‘What is the role of the father?’ in attachment is complicated. Some researchers attempting to answer this question actually want to understand the role of fathers as secondary attachment figures. But others are more concerned with fathers as a primary attachment figure. The former have tended to see fathers as behaving differently from mothers and having a distinct role. The latter have found that fathers can take on a maternal’ role.
This makes it difficult to offer a simple answer as to the role of the father. It really depends what specific role is being discussed.
Conflicting evidence Role of Father (AO3)
limitation: findings vary according to the methodology used
Longitudinal studies e.g Grossmann et al: fathers as secondary attachment figures have an important and distinct role in their children’s development, involving play and stimulation.
However, if fathers have a distinctive and important role we would expect that children growing up in single-mother and lesbian-parent families would turn out in some way different from those in two-parent heterosexual families. In fact studies (eg. McCallum and Golombok 2004) consistently show that these children do not develop differently from children in two-parent heterosexual families.
This means that the question as to whether fathers have a distinctive role remains unanswered.
Role of father: Counterpoint in conflict (AO3)
research may not in fact be in conflict.
It could be that fathers typically take on distinctive roles in two-parent heterosexual families, but that parents in single-mother and lesbian-parent families simply adapt to accommodate the role played by fathers.
This means that the question of a distinctive role for fathers is clear after all. When present, fathers tend to adopt a distinctive role, but families can adapt to not having a father.
Role of the father Real-world application (AO3)
Strength: it can be used to offer advice to parents.
parents sometimes struggle on who should take on the primary caregiver role + many can worry about having children at all. Mothers may feel pressured to stay at home due to stereotypical views of parents.
- fathers may be pressured to focus on work rather than parenting. In some families this may not be economically the best solution. Research into the role of the father can be used to offer reassuring advice to parents. e.g, heterosexual parents can be informed that fathers are quite capable of becoming primary attachment figures. Also lesbian-parent and single-mother families can be informed that not having a father around does not affect a child’s development.
- so parental anxiety about the role of fathers can be reduced.
Bias in role of the father (AO3)
how fathers do or should behave can be created by stereotypical accounts and images of parenting roles and behaviour, for example those used in advertising, These stereotypes (e.g fathers are not primary caregivers, fathers are stricter, etc.) may cause unintentional observer bias whereby observers ‘see what they expect to see rather than recording objective reality.
Animal studies definition:
In psychology these are studies carried out on non-human animal species rather than on humans, either for ethical or practical reasons - practical because animals breed faster and researchers are interested in seeing results across more than one generation of animals.
Lorenz’s research (AO1)
In the early 20th century a number of ethologists conducted animal studies of the relationships between newborn animals and their mothers. Their observations informed psychologists understanding of caregiver-infant attachment in humans. One of the most prominent ethologists was Konrad Lorenz.
Animal studies Imprinting (AO1)
Lorenz (1952) first observed the phenomenon of imprinting when he was a child and a neighbour gave him a newly hatched duckling that then followed him around.
Lorenz Procedure: (AO1)
As an adult researcher Lorenz set up a classic experiment in which he randomly divided a large clutch of goose eggs. Half the eggs were hatched with the mother goose in their natural environment. The other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz.
Lorenz Findings (AO1)
The incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere whereas the control group, hatched in the presence of their mother, followed her. When the two groups were mixed up the control group continued to follow the mother and the experimental group followed Lorenz.
imprinting - whereby bird species that are mobile from birth (like geese and ducks) attach to and follow the first moving object they see. Lorenz identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place. Depending on the species this can be as brief as a few hours after hatching (or birth). If imprinting does not occur within that time Lorenz found that chicks did not attach themselves to a mother figure.
Lorenz Sexual imprinting (AO1)
Lorenz also investigated the relationship between imprinting and adult mate preferences. He observed that birds that imprinted on a human would often later display courtship behaviour towards humans.
In a case study Lorenz (1952) described a peacock that had been reared in the reptile house of a zoo where the first moving objects the peacock saw after hatching were giant tortoises. As an adult this bird would only direct courtship behaviour towards giant tortoises. Lorenz concluded that this meant the peacock had undergone sexual imprinting.
Harlow’s research (AO1)
Harry Harlow carried out perhaps the most important animal research in terms of informing our understanding of attachment. Harlow worked with rhesus monkeys, which are much more similar to humans than Lorenz’s birds.
Harlow The importance of contact comfort (AO1)
Harlow observed that newborns kept alone in a bare cage often died but that they usually survived if given something soft like a cloth to cuddle.
Harlow Procedure (AO1)
Harlow (1958) tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother. In one experiment he reared 16 baby monkeys with two wire model ‘mothers’.
In one condition milk was dispensed by the plain-wire mother whereas in a second condition the milk was dispensed by the cloth-covered mother.
Harlow Findings (AO1):
The baby monkeys cuddled the cloth-covered mother in preference to the plain-wire mother and sought comfort from the cloth one when frightened (e.g. by a noisy mechanical teddy bear) regardless of which mother (cloth-covered or plain-wire) dispensed milk. This showed that ‘contact comfort was of more importance to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour.
Maternally deprived monkeys as adults (AO1)
Harlow + colleagues followed monkeys deprived of a ‘real’ mother into adulthood to see if this early maternal deprivation had a permanent effect.
- The monkeys reared with plain-wire mothers only were the most dysfunctional.
However, even those reared with a cloth-covered mother did not develop normal social behaviour.
monkeys were more aggressive + less sociable and bred less often than is typical for monkeys, being unskilled at mating. When they became mothers, some of the deprived monkeys neglected their young and others attacked their children, even killing them in some cases.
Monkeys The critical period for normal development (AO1)
Like Lorenz, Harlow concluded that there was a critical period for attachment formation - a mother figure had to be introduced to a young monkey within 90 days for an attachment to form. After this time attachment was impossible and the damage done by early deprivation became irreversible.
Lorenz Research support (AO3)
strength: the existence of support for the concept of imprinting.
study by Lucia Regolin and Giorgio Vallortigara (1995) supports Lorenz’s idea of imprinting. Chicks were exposed to simple shape combinations that moved, such as a triangle with a rectangle in front. A range of shape combinations were then moved in front of them and they followed the original most closely.
- supports the view that young animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object present in the critical window of development, as predicted by Lorenz.
Lorenz Generalisability to humans (AO3)
limitation: ability to generalise findings and conclusions from birds to humans.
The mammalian attachment system is quite different and more complex than that in birds. For example, in mammals attachment is a two-way process, so it is not just the young who become attached to their mothers but also the mammalian mothers show an emotional attachment to their young.
This means that it is probably not appropriate to generalise Lorenz’s ideas to humans.
Monkeys Applications to understanding human behaviour (AO3)
Although human attachment is very different from that in birds there have been attempts to use the idea that some kind of ‘imprinting’ explains human behaviour. For example, Peter Seebach (2005) suggested that computer users exhibit ‘baby duck syndrome’ - which is the attachment formed to their first computer operating system, leading them to reject others.
Monkey Real-world value (AO3)
strength: important real-world applications.
e.g has helped social workers and clinical psychologists understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in child development allowing them to intervene to prevent poor outcomes (Howe 1998). We also now understand the importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes in the wild.
This means that the value of Harlow’s research is not just theoretical but also practical.
Monkey Generalisability to humans (AO3):
limitation: Harlow’s research is the ability to generalise findings and conclusions from monkeys to humans.
- Rhesus monkeys are much more similar to humans than Loren’s birds, and all mammals share some common attachment behaviours. However, the human brain and human behaviour is still more complex than that of monkeys.
This means that it may not be appropriate to generalise Harlow’s findings to humans.
Monkey ethical issues (AO3)
Harlow’s research caused severe and long-term distress to the monkeys. However, his findings and conclusions have important theoretical and practical applications.
Learning theory definition:
A set of theories from the behaviourist approach to psychology, that emphasise the role of learning in the acquisition of behaviour. Explanations for learning of behaviour include classical and operant conditioning.
Classical conditioning of attachment (AO1)
Unconditioned stimulus → Unconditioned response
Neutral stimulus → No response
Unconditioned + neutral stimulus → Unconditioned response
Conditioned Stimulus → Conditioned response
Learning theory and attachment (AO1)
Learning theorists John Dollard and Neal Miller (1950) proposed that caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory. Their approach is sometimes called a cupboard love approach because it emphasises the importance of the attachment figure as a provider of food.
Classical conditioning (AO1)
involves learning to associate two stimuli together so that we begin to respond to one in the same way as we already respond to the other.
In attachment, food serves as an unconditioned stimulus (gives us pleasure) - we don’t have to learn that + unconditioned response.
A caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus, i.e. something that produces no response.
but when the caregiver provides food over time they become associated with food. When the baby then sees this person there is an expectation of food. The neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus. Once conditioning has taken place the sight of the caregiver produces a conditioned response of pleasure. To a learning theorist this conditioned pleasure response is love, i.e. an attachment is formed and the caregiver becomes an attachment figure.
Operant conditioning (AO1)
involves learning from the consequences of behaviour.
If behaviour produces pleasant consequence: likely to be repeated. (reinforced). If behaviour gives (punishment): less likely to be repeated.
Operant conditioning can explain why babies cry for comfort - an important behaviour in building attachment. Crying leads to a response from the caregiver, e.g feeding. if caregiver provides the correct response, crying is reinforced. The baby then directs crying for comfort towards the caregiver who responds with comforting social suppressor’ behaviour.
reinforcement is a two-way process. At the same time as the baby is reinforced for crying, the caregiver receives negative reinforcement as crying stops - escaping from something unpleasant is reinforcing. This interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment.
Attachment as a secondary drive (AO1)
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.
Robert Sears et al. (1957) suggested that, as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them. Attachment is thus a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive.
Counter-evidence from animal studies (AO3)
limitation: explanations for attachment is lack of support from studies conducted on animals.
Lorenz’s geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw regardless of whether this object was associated with food.
- Harlow’s research with monkeys, there is no support for the importance of food.
When given a choice, Harlow’s monkeys displayed attachment behaviour towards a soft surrogate ‘mother’ in preference to a wire one which provided milk. - so factors other than association with food are important in the formation of attachments.
Counter-evidence from studies on humans (AO3)
limitation: learning theory explanations is lack of support from studies of human babies.
Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy Emerson (1964): babies tended to form their main attachment to their mother regardless of whether she was the one who usually fed them.
Russell Isabella et al. (1989) found that high levels of interactional synchrony predicted the quality of attachment. factors are not related to feeding.
- suggests that food is not the main factor in the formation of human attachments.
Learning theory Some conditioning may be involved (AO3)
Strength: elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of attachment.
seems unlikely that association with food plays a central role in attachment, but conditioning may still play a role. e.g a baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult, and this may influence the baby’s choice of their main attachment figure.
- so learning theory may still be useful in understanding the development of attachments.
Learning theory Some conditioning may be involved Counterpoint (AO3):
Both classical and operant conditioning explanations see the baby playing a relatively passive role in attachment development, simply responding to associations with comfort or reward. In fact research shows that babies take a very active role in the interactions that produce attachment (e.g. Feldman and Eidelman 2007).
- so conditioning may not be an adequate explanation of any aspect of attachment.
Social learning theory (AO3)
Dale Hay and Jo Vespo (1988): parents teach children to love them by demonstrating attachment behaviours, e.g hugging.
Parents also reinforce loving behaviour by showing approval when babies display their own attachment behaviours (e.g. giving attention or cuddles to their parents).
This social learning perspective has the further advantage that it is based around two-way interaction between baby and adult, so it fits better with research into the importance of reciprocity.
Monotropic definition:
A term sometimes used to describe Bowlby’s theory. Mono means ‘one’ and tropic means leaning towards’. This indicates that one particular attachment is different from all others and of central importance to a child’s development.
Critical period definition:
The time within which an attachment must form if it is to form at all. Lorenz and Harlow noted that attachment in birds and monkeys had critical periods.
Bowlby extended the idea to humans, proposing that human babies have a sensitive period after which it will be much more difficult to form an attachment.
Internal working model definition:
mental representations of the world, eg. the representation we have of our relationship to our primary attachment figure. This model affects our future relationships because it carries our perception of what relationships are like.
Monotropic definition:
A term sometimes used to describe Bowlby’s theory. Mono means ‘one’ and tropic means ‘leaning towards’. This indicates that one particular attachment is different from all others and of central importance to a child’s development.
Critical period definition:
The time within which an attachment must form if it is to form at all. Lorenz and Harlow noted that attachment in birds and monkeys had critical periods.
Bowlby extended the idea to humans, proposing that human babies have a sensitive period after which it will be much more difficult to form an attachment.
Internal working model definition:
Our mental representations of the world, eg. the representation we have of our relationship to our primary attachment figure. This model affects our future relationships because it carries our perception of what relationships are like.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory (AO1)
John Bowlby (1988) rejected learning theory as explanation for attachment as he said, ‘were it true, an infant of a year or two should take readily to whomever feeds him and this is clearly not the case. Instead he looked at the work of Lorenz + Harlow for ideas and proposed evolutionary explanation - that attachment was an innate system that gives a survival advantage. So attachment, like imprinting, evolved to keep young animals safe by ensuring they stay close to adult caregivers.
monotropy (AO1)
Bowlby’s theory (1958, 1969) is described as monotropic due to a child’s attachment to one particular caregiver
- believed child’s attachment to this one caregiver is more important than others (called this person the mother’ but does not need to be biological mother)
- believed that the more time a baby spent with primary attachment figure the better.
The law of continuity stated that the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of their attachment.
• The law of accumulated separation stated that the effects of every separation from the mother add up and the safest dose is therefore a zero dose (Bowlby 1975).
Social releasers and the critical period (AO1)
- social releases: bowlby believed babies are born with innate ‘cute’ behaviours e.g smiling, cooing and gripping that encourage attention from adults + build attachment
- believed it was a reciprocal process
The interplay between baby and adult attachment systems gradually builds the relationship between baby and caregiver, beginning in the early weeks of life + proposed a critical period around six months when the infant attachment system is active (viewed this as more of a sensitive period). A child is maximally sensitive at six months and this possibly extends up to the age of two. If an attachment is not formed in this time, a child will find it much harder to form one later.
Internal working model (AO1)
- Bowlby believed child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary attachment figure. (internal working model) as it serves as a model of wahat relationships are like
child whose first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to form an expectation that all relationships are as loving and reliable, and they will bring these qualities to future relationships. However, a child whose first relationship involves poor treatment will tend to form further poor relationships in which they expect such treatment from others and/or treat others in that way.
Most importantly the internal working model affects the child’s later ability to be a parent themselves.
- some base parenting behaviour on own experiences of being parented explaining why children from functional families tend to have similar families themselves.
Validity of monotropy challenged (AO3)
limitation: lacks validity
- Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy Emerson (1964) found significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time. Also, 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 attachments. e.g other attachments to family members provide same key qualities (emotional support, a safe base etc)
- so Bowlby may be incorrect that there is a unique quality + importance to the child’s primary attachment.
Support for social releases (AO3)
strength: evidence supporting the role of social releasers.
cute baby behaviours are designed to elicit interaction from caregivers. T. Berry Brazelton et al. (1975) observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers. The researchers then instructed the babies’ primary attachment figures to ignore their babies’ social releasers. Babies (who were previously shown to be normally responsive) became increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and lay motionless.
- so shows role of social releasers in emotional development and suggests that they are important in the process of attachment development.
Support for internal working model (AO3)
strength: support for the internal working model.
The idea of the internal working model predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed from one generation to the next. Heidi Bailey et al. (2007) assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their one-year-old babies. The researchers measured the mothers’ attachment to their own primary attachment figures (i.e. their parents) + assessed the attachment quality of the babies, found that mothers with poor attachment own primary attachment figures more likely to have poorly attached babies.
- supporting Bowlby’s idea that mothers’ ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their internal working models
Counterpoint for internal working model (AO3)
There are probably other important influences on social development. e.g some psychologists believe that genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviour in both babies and adults. These differences could also impact on their parenting ability (Kornienko 2016).
- so Bowlby may have overstated importance of internal working model in social behaviour and parenting at the expense of other factors.
Feminist concerns Bowlby (AO3)
who work may negatively affect their child’s emotional development.
Feminists like Erica Burman (1994) point out that this belief sets up mothers to take the blame for anything that goes wrong for the child in the future + gives some excuses to restrict mothers’ activities, e.g returning to work.
On the other hand, prior to Bowlby’s time people didn’t think the mother’s role was important + many custody disputes were settled in favour of the father as mothers were not regarded as necessary.
- Bowlby’s ideas have many real-world applications, e.g key workers in day care who build an attachment with particular babies.
Strange Situation definition:
A controlled observation designed to test attachment security. Babies are assessed on their response to playing in an unfamiliar room, being left alone, left with a stranger and being reunited with a caregiver.
Secure attachment definition:
Generally thought of as the most desirable attachment type, associated with psychologically healthy outcomes. In the Strange Situation this is shown by moderate stranger and separation anxiety and ease of comfort at reunion.
Insecure-avoidant attachment definition:
An attachment type characterised by low anxiety but weak attachment. In the Strange Situation this is shown by low stranger and separation anxiety and little response to reunion, maybe even an avoidance of the caregiver.
Insecure-resistant attachment definition:
An attachment type characterised by strong attachment and high anxiety. In the Strange Situation this is shown by high levels of stranger and separation anxiety and by resistance to being comforted at reunion.
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ (AO1):
developed by Mary Ainsworth and Silvia Bell (1969). The aim was to be able to observe key attachment behaviours as a means of assessing the quality of a baby’s attachment to a caregiver.
Procedure of Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ (AO1):
controlled observation procedure designed to measure the security of attachment a baby displays towards a caregiver. It takes place in a room with quite controlled conditions (i.e. a laboratory) with a two-way mirror and/or cameras through which psychologists can observe the baby’s behaviour.
Strange situation, The behaviours used to judge attachment included:
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, i.e. a point of contact that will make them feel safe.
• 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.
The procedure has seven episodes, each of which lasts three minutes.
strange situation steps (AO1)
Caregiver and baby enter an unfamiliar playroom.
- The baby is encouraged to explore.
Tests exploration and secure base. - A stranger comes in, talks to the caregiver and approaches the baby.
Tests stranger anxiety. - The caregiver leaves the baby and stranger together.
Tests separation and stranger anxiety. - The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves.
Tests reunion behaviour and exploration/secure base. - The caregiver leaves the baby alone.
Tests separation anxiety. - The stranger returns.
Tests stranger anxiety. - The caregiver returns and is reunited with the baby
Tests reunion behaviour.
Findings - types of attachment (AO1)
Ainsworth et al. (1978) found that there were distinct patterns in the way that babies behaved. They identified three main types of attachment:
• Secure attachment (Type B). These babies explore happily but regularly go back to their caregiver (proximity-seeking and secure-base behaviour). They usually show moderate separation distress and moderate stranger anxiety. Securely attached babies require and accept comfort from the caregiver in the reunion stage. About 60-75% of British babies are classified as secure.
• Insecure-avoidant attachment (Type A). These babies explore freely but do not seek proximity or show secure-base behaviour. They show little or no reaction when their caregiver leaves and little stranger anxiety. They make little effort to make contact when the caregiver returns and may even avoid such contact. About 20-25% of British babies are classified as insecure-avoidant.
• Insecure resistant attachment (Type C). These babies seek greater proximity than others and so explore less. They show high levels of stranger and separation distress but they resist comfort when reunited with their caregiver. Around 3% of British babies are classified as insecure-resistant.
Strange situation Good predictive validity (AO3):
strength: outcome predicts a number of aspects of the baby’s later development.
research has shown that babies and toddlers assessed as Type B (secure) tend to have better outcomes than others, both in later childhood and in adulthood. In childhood this includes better achievement in school and less involvement in bullying (McCormick et al. 2016, Kokkinos
2007). Securely attached babies also tend to go on to have better mental health in adulthood (Ward et al. 2006). Those babies assessed as having insecure-resistant attachment and those not falling into Types A, B or C tend to have the worst outcomes.
- so Strange Situation measures something real and meaningful in a baby’s development.
strange situation predictive validity counterpoint (AO3):
measures something important that is associated with later development. but not all psychologists believe it is attachment.
e.g Jerome Kagan (1982) suggested that genetically-influenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment behaviour in the Strange Situation and later development.
This means that the Strange Situation may not actually measure attachment.
Strange situation Good reliability (AO3)
strenght: good inter-rater reliability (the agreement between different observers).
Johanna Bick et al. 2012) tested inter-rater reliability for the Strange Situation for a team of trained observers and found agreement on attachment type in 94% of cases. This high level of reliability may be because the procedure takes place under controlled conditions and because behaviours (such as proximity-seeking and stranger anxiety) involve large movements and are therefore easy to observe.
e.g, anxious babies cry and crawl away from strangers.
This means that we can be confident that attachment type as assessed by the Strange Situation does not depend on subjective judgements.
strange situation culture bias (AO3):
limitation: different cultural contexts.
developed in Britain + USA.
- babies have different experiences in different cultures and these experiences may affect their responses to the Strange Situation. For example, in one Japanese study by Keiko Takahashi (1986), babies displayed very high levels of separation anxiety and so a disproportionate number were classified as insecure-resistant. Takahashi (1990) suggests that this anxiety response was not due to high rates of attachment insecurity but to the unusual nature of the experience in Japan where mother-baby separation is very rare.
- so it is very difficult to know what the Strange Situation is measuring when used outside Western Europe and the USA.
Strange situation Other attachment types (AO3):
Mary Main and Judith Solomon (1986) identified a fourth category of attachment - a disorganised or Type D attachment, a mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours.
However, Type D babies are unusual and have generally experienced some form of severe neglect or abuse. Most will go on to develop psychological disorders by adulthood.
cultural variations definition:
‘Culture’ refers to the norms and values that exist within any group of people.
Cultural variations then are the differences in norms and values that exist between people in different groups. In attachment research we are concerned with the differences in the proportion of children of different attachment types.
van Izendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research:
Marinus van lIzendoorn and Pieter 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.
van Izendoorn and Kroonenberg’s procedure (AO1)
researchers located 32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation had been used to investigate the proportions of babies with different attachment types.
- conducted in eight countries - 15 were in USA. Overall the studies yielded results for 1,990 children. The data for these 32 studies was meta-analysed meaning results were combined and analysed together, weighting each study for its sample size.
van Izendoorn and Kroonenberg’s findings (AO1):
- wide variation between the proportions of attachment types in different studies. In all countries secure attachment was the most common classification.
- proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China
- individualist cultures rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to Ainsworth’s
original sample (all under 14%) but this was not true for the collectivist samples from China, Japan and Israel where rates were above 25% (and where rates of insecure-avoidant attachment were reduced). - variations between results of studies within the same country were actually 150% greater than those between countries. In the USA, for example, one study found only 46% securely attached compared to one sample as high as 90%.
Other studies of cultural variations (AO1):
Italian study Alessandra Simonelli et al. (2014) conducted a study in Italy to see whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types still matches those found in previous studies. The researchers assessed 76 babies aged 12 months using the Strange Situation.
They found 50% were secure, with 36% insecure-avoidant. This is a lower rate of secure attachment and higher rate of insecure-avoidant attachment than has been found in many studies. The researchers suggest this is as increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional childcare.
- suggest that patterns of attachment types are not static but vary in line with cultural change.
A Korean study of cultural variations:
Mi Kyoung in et al. (2012) conducted a study to compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies. The Strange Situation was used to assess 87 babies.
The overall proportions of insecure and secure babies were similar to those in most countries, with most babies being secure. However, more of those classified as insecurely attached were resistant and only one baby was avoidant. This distribution is similar to the distribution of attachment types found in Japan (van Izendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988).
Since Japan and Korea have quite similar child-rearing styles this similarity might be explained in terms of child-rearing style.
Conclusions secure attachment (AO1):
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.
However, the research also clearly shows that cultural practices have an influence on attachment type.
Indigenous researchers (AO3):
strength: most of the studies were conducted by indigenous psychologists (psychologists are those from the same cultural background as the participants.) e.g van lizendoorn and Kroonenberg included research by a German team (Grossmann et al. 1981) and Keiko Takahashi (1986) who is Japanese. so potential problems in cross-cultural research can be avoided, such as researchers’ misunderstandings of the language used by participants or having difficulty communicating instructions to them.
so there is an excellent chance that researchers and participants communicated
successfully - enhancing the validity of the data collected
limitations: bias as of one nation’s stereotypes of another.
Counterpoint of Indigenous researchers: (AO3)
Gilda Morelli and Edward Tronick (1991) were outsiders from America when they studied child-rearing and patterns of attachment in the Efé of Zaire.
Their data might have been affected by difficulties in gathering data from participants outside their own culture so data from some countries might have been affected by bias difficulty in cross-cultural communication.
Confounding variables of cross-cultural research: (AO3)
limitation: impact of confounding variables on findings.
- Studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when they are compared in reviews or meta-analyses. Sample characteristics such as poverty, social class and urban/rural make-up can confound results as can the age of participants studied in different countries. Environmental variables might also differ between studies and confound results. For example the size of the room and the availability of interesting toys there - babies might appear to explore more in studies conducted in small rooms with attractive toys compared to large, bare rooms. Less visible proximity-seeking because of r00m size might make a child more likely to be classified as avoidant.
This means that looking at attachment behaviour in different non-matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment.
Imposed etic cross cultural research (AO3):
limitation: trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context.
Cross-cultural psychology includes the ideas of emic (cultural uniqueness) and etic (cross-cultural universality). Imposed etic occurs when we impose an idea or technique that works in one cultural context to another. An example of this in attachment research is in the use of babies response to reunion with the caregiver in the Strange Situation. In Britain and the USA, lack of affection on reunion may indeed indicate an avoidant attachment. But in Germany such behaviour would be more likely interpreted as independence rather than insecurity. Therefore that part of the Strange Situation may not work in Germany.
This means that the behaviours measured by the Strange Situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts, and comparing them across cultures is meaningless.
cross cultural research competing explanations (AO3):
Cross-cultural research has found very similar attachment types in different countries.
Bowlby’s theory explains this similarity by identifying attachment as innate and universal.
However, van lIzendoorn and Kroonenberg suggest an alternative explanation.
Namely that global media represents a particular view of how parents and babies are meant to behave. This may override traditional cultural differences in the way children are brought up.
Maternal deprivation definition:
The emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and his/her mother or mother-substitute.
Bowlby proposed that continuous care from a mother is essential for normal psychological development, and that prolonged separation from this adult causes serious damage to emotional and intellectual development.
Theory of maternal deprivation (AO1):
John Bowlby is known for his monotropic theory of attachment. However, earlier in his career he also proposed the theory of maternal deprivation. This earlier theory focused on the idea that the continual presence of care from a mother or mother-substitute is essential for normal psychologica development of babies and toddlers, both emotionally and intellectually. Bowlby (1953) famously said that mother-love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health: Being separated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences (maternal deprivation).
Separation versus deprivation (AO1):
There is an important distinction to be made between separation and deprivation. Separation simply means the child not being in the presence of the primary attachment figure. This only becomes a problem if the child becomes deprived of emotional care (which can happen even if a mother is present and, say, depressed). Brief separations, particularly where the child is with a substitute caregiver who can provide emotional care, are not significant for development but extended separations can lead to deprivation, which by definition causes harm.
the critical period (AO1):
Bowlby saw the first two-and-a-half years of life as a critical period for psychological development If a child is separated from their mother in the absence of suitable substitute care and so deprived of her emotional care for an extended duration during this critical period then (Bowlby believed) psychological damage was inevitable. He also believed there was a continuing risk up to the age of five.
intellectual development (AO1):
One way in which maternal deprivation affects childrens development is their intellectual development. Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would experience delayed intellectual development, characterised by abnormally low IQ. This has been demonstrated in studies of adoption. For example, William 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 (AO1):
A second major way in which being deprived of a mother figure’s emotional care affects children is in their emotional development. Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others. This prevents a person developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality. Affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate the feelings of victims and so lack remorse for their actions.
Bowlby’s research (AO1)
Bowlby’s (1944) 44 thieves study examined the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation.
Bowlby procedure psychopathy + maternal deprivation (AO1):
The sample in this study consisted of 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing.
All thieves’ were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy: characterised as a lack of affection, lack of guilt about their actions and lack of empathy for their victims. Their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether the ‘thieves’ had prolonged early separations from their mothers. The sample was compared to a control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally-disturbed young people.
Bowlby research findings (AO1):
found that 14 of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths and 12 of these had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first two years of their lives. In contrast only five of the remaining 30 thieves’ had experienced separations. Only two participants in the control group of 44 had experienced long separations.
Bowlby concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.
flawed evidence maternal deprivation (AO3):
limitation: poor quality of the evidence it is based on.
Bowby’s 44 thieves study (facing page) is flawed because it was Bowlby himself who carried out both the family interviews and the assessments for affectionless psychopathy. This left him open to bias because he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy. Other sources of evidence were equally flawed. For example, Bowlby was also influenced by the findings of Goldfarb’s (1943) research on the development of deprived children in wartime orphanages. This study has problems of confounding variables because the children in Goldfarbs study had experienced early trauma and institutional care as well as prolonged separation from their primary caregivers.
This means that Bowlby’s original sources of evidence for maternal deprivation had serious flaws and would not be taken seriously as evidence nowadays.
Counterpoint Maternal deprivation: (AO3)
new line of research has provided some modest support for the idea that maternal deprivation can have long-term effects. Frederic 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.
This means that, although Bowlby relied on flawed evidence to support the theory of maternal deprivation, there are other sources of evidence for his ideas.
Deprivation and privation (AO3):
limitation: confusion between different types of early experience.
Michael Rutter (1981) drew an important distinction between two types of early negative experience. Deprivation strictly refers to the loss of the primary attachment figure after attachment has developed. On the other hand privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place - this may take place when children are brought up in institutional care. Rutter pointed out that the severe long-term damage Bowby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be the result of privation. So the children studied by Goldfarb may actually have been prived’ rather than deprived.
Similarly, many of the children in the 44 thieves study had disrupted early lives (e.g. spells in hospital and may never have formed strong attachments.
This means that Bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation in children’s development.
Critical versus sensitive periods (AO3):
limitation: Bowlby’s idea of a critical period.
For Bowlby, damage was inevitable if a child had not formed an attachment in the first two-and-a-half years of life. Hence this is a critical period. However, there is evidence to suggest that in many cases good quality aftercare can prevent most or all of this damage. For example Jarmila Koluchová (1976) reported the case of the Czech Twins. The vins experienced very severe physical and emotional abuse from the age of 18 month. up until they were seven years old. Although they were severely damaged emotionally by their experience they received excellent care and by their teens they had recovered fully.
This means that lasting harm is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation. The
‘critical period’ is therefore better seen as a sensitive period.
Orphan studies definition:
These concern children placed in care because their parents cannot look after them.
An orphan is a child whose parents have either died or have abandoned them permanently.
Institutionalisation definition:
A term for the effects of living in an institutional setting. The term ‘institution’ refers to a place like a hospital or an orphanage where people live for long, continuous periods of time. In such places there is often very little emotional care provided. In attachment research we are interested in the effects of institutional care on children’s attachment and subsequent development.
Romanian orphan studies (AO1):
Research on maternal deprivation has turned to orphan studies as a means of studying the effects of deprivation on emotional and intellectual development. A tragic opportunity to look at the effects of institutional care and the consequent institutionalisation arose in Romania in the 1990S. Former President Nicolai Ceaucescu required Romanian women to have five children. Many Romanian parents could not afford to keep their children and the children ended up in huge orphanages in very poor conditions. After the 1989 Romanian revolution many of the children were adopted, some by British parents.
Rutter et al’s research procedure (AO1):
Michael Rutter and colleagues (2011) have followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans for many years as part of the English and Romanian adoptee (ERA) study. The orphans had been adopted by families in the UK. The aim of the ERA has been to investigate the extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions. Physical, cognitive and emotional development has been assessed at ages 4, 6, 11, 15 and 22-25 years. A group of 52 children from the UK adopted around the same time have served as a control group.
Rutter et al’s research Findings (AO1)
When the children first arrived in the UK, half the adoptees showed signs of delayed intellectual development and the majority were severely undernourished. At age 11 the adopted children showed differential rates of recovery that were related to their age of adoption. The mean IQ of those children adopted before the age of six months was 102, compared with 86 for those adopted between six months and two years and 77 for those adopted after two years. These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al. 2010). ADHD was more common in 15- and 22-25-year-old samples (Kennedy et al. 2016).
In terms of attachment, there appeared to be a difference in outcome related to whether adoption took place before or after six months. Those children adopted after they were six months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment. Symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
In contrast those children adopted before the age of six months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al’s research procedure (AO1):
Charles Zeanah et al. (2005) conducted the Bucharest early intervention (BEI) project, assessing attachment in 95 Romanian children aged 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutional care (90% on average). They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution. Their attachment type was measured using the Strange Situation. In addition carers were asked about unusual social behaviour including clingy, attention-seeking behaviour directed inappropriately at all adults (a measure of disinhibited attachment).
Zeanah et al’s research findings (AO1):
The researchers found that 74% of the control group were classed as securely attached in the Strange Situation. However, only 19% of the institutional group were securely attached. In contrast, the description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children as opposed to less than 20% of the controls.
Effects of institutionalisation (Disinhibited attachment) (AO1):
This is a typical effect of spending time in an institution. These children are equally friendly and affectionate towards familiar people and strangers. This is highly unusual behaviour - remember that most children in their second year show stranger anxiety.
Rutter (2006) has explained disinhibited attachment as an adaptation to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive period for attachment formation (see Shaffer’s stages of attachment and Bowlby’s critical period for attachment). In poor quality institutions, like those in Romania, 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.
Effects of institutionalisation (Intellectual disability) (AO1):
In Rutter’s study most children showed signs of intellectual disability (previously called retardation) when they arrived in Britain. However, most of those adopted before they were six months old caught up with the control group by age four.
It appears that, like emotional development, damage to intellectual development as a result of institutionalisation can be recovered provided adoption takes place before the age of six months - the age at which attachments form.
Romanian orphans Real-world application (AO3):
strength: application to improve conditions for children growing up outside their family home.
Studying the Romanian orphans has improved psychologists understanding of the effects of early institutional care and how to prevent the worst of these effects (Langton 2006). This has led to improvements in the conditions experienced by looked-after children, i.e. children growing up in the care system, For example children’s homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child.
Instead the children tend to have one or two ‘key workers’ who play a central role in their emotional care. Also institutional care is now seen as an undesirable option for looked-after children. Considerable effort is made to accommodate such children in foster care or to have them adopted instead.
This means that children in institutional care have a chance to develop normal
attachments and disinhibited attachment is avoided.
Romanian orphans Fewer confounding variables (AO3):
strength: lack of confounding variables.
There were many orphan studies before the Romanian orphans became available to study (e.g. orphans studied during the Second World War). Many of the children studied in orphanages had experienced varying degrees of trauma, and it is difficult to disentangle the effects of neglect, physical abuse and bereavement from those of institutional care. However the children from Romanian orphanages had, in the main, been handed over by loving parents who could not afford to keep them.
This means that results were much less likely to be confounded by other negative early experiences (higher internal validity.
Romanian orphans Counterpoint (AO3):
the other hand, studying children from Romanian orphanages might have introduced different confounding variables. The quality of care in these institutions was remarkably poor, with children receiving very little intellectual stimulation or comfort.
This means that the harmful effects seen in studies of Romanian orphans may represent the effects of poor institutional care rather than institutional care
Romanian orphan studies Lack of adult data (AO3):
limitation: current lack of data on adult development.
The latest data from the ERA Study looked at the children in their early- to mid-
205. This means that we do not currently have data to answer some of the most interesting research questions about the long-term effects of early institutional care.
These research questions include the lifetime prevalence of mental health problems and participants’ success in forming and maintaining adult romantic and parental relationships. It will take a long time to gather this data because of the longitudinal design of the study, i.e. the same participants are followed over a long period.
This means it will be some time before we know more completely what the long-term effects are for the Romanian orphans. It is possible that late-adopted children may ‘catch up.
The Romanian orphan studies social sensitivity (AO3):
socially sensitive because the results show that late-adopted children typically have poor developmental outcomes. Results have been published while the children have been growing up, meaning that their parents, teachers and anyone else who knew them might have lowered their expectations and treated the adopted children differently. This might even have created a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On the other hand, much has been learned from the Romanian orphan studies that might benefit future institutionalised or potentially institutionalised children.
Childhood relationships definition:
Affiliations with other people in childhood, including friends and classmates, and with adults such as teachers.
Adult relationships definition:
Those relationships the child goes on to have later in life as an adult. These include friendships and working relationships but most critically relationships with romantic partners and the person’s own children.
Internal working model definition:
Our mental representations of the world, eg. the representation we have of our relationship to our primary attachment figure. This model affects our future relationships because it carries our perception of what relationships are like.
Internal working model (AO1):
tarlier in this chapter we discussed the formation of the internal working model (see page 84). John Bowlby (1969) suggested that a baby’s first relationship with their primary attachment figure leads to a mental representation of this relationship. This internal working model acts as a template for future childhood and adult relationships.
The quality of a baby’s first attachment is crucial because this template will powerfully affect the nature of their future relationships. A baby whose first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable attachment figure will tend to assume this is how relationships are meant to be. They will then seek out functional relationships and behave functionally within them, i.e. without being too uninvolved or emotionally close (which would typify insecure-avoidant attachment) or being controlling and argumentative (insecure-resistant attachment).
A child with bad experiences of their first attachment will bring these bad experiences to bear on later relationships. This may mean they struggle to form relationships in the first place or they may not behave appropriately within relationships, displaying insecure-avoidant or insecure-resistant behaviour towards friends and partners.
Relationships in childhood (AO1):
Attachment type is associated with the quality of peer relationships in childhood. Securely attached babies tend to go on to form the best quality childhood friendships whereas insecurely attached babies later have friendship difficulties (Kerns 1994).
In particular, bullying behaviour can be predicted by attachment type. Rowan Myron-Wilson and Peter Smith (1998) assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using standard questionnaires in 196 children aged 7-11 from London. Secure children were very unlikely to be involved in bullying. Insecure-avoidant children were the most likely to be victims and insecure-resistant children were most likely to be bullies.
Relationships in adulthood (AO1)
Internal working models affect adult experiences - romantic relationships + parental relationships with your own children.
- study by Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver (1987), is described on the left. In another, Gerard McCarthy (1999) studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when they were babies to establish their early attachment type. Those assessed as securely attached babies had the best adult friendships and romantic relationships. Adults classed as insecure-resistant as babies had particular problems maintaining friendships whilst those classed as insecure-avoidant struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships.
- models affect child’s ability to parent their own children. People tend to base their parenting style on their internal working model so attachment type tends to be passed on through generations of a family. Recall the study by Heidi Bailey et al. (2007). They considered the attachments of 99 mothers to their babies and to their own mothers. Mother-baby attachment was assessed using the Strange Situation and mother’s attachment to their own mother was assessed using an adult attachment interview. The majority of women had the same attachment classification both to their babies and their own mothers.
Research support influence of early attachment in later relationships (AO3):
strength: research into attachment and later relationships is supporting evidence.
We have looked at studies linking attachment to later development. Reviews of such evidence (e.g. Fearon and Roisman 2017) have concluded that early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional well-being and attachment to own children. How strong the relationship is between early attachment type and later development depends both on the attachment type and the aspect of later development. So whilst insecure-avoidant attachment seems to convey fairly mild disadvantages for any aspect of development, disorganised attachment is strongly associated with later mental disorder.
This means that secure attachment as a baby appears to convey advantages for future development while disorganised attachment appears to seriously disadvantage children.
Counterpoint of influence of early attachment (AO3):
Not all evidence supports the existence of close links between early attachment and later development. For example the Regensburg longitudinal study (Becker-Stoll et al. 2008) followed 43 individuals from one year of age. At age 16 attachment was assessed using the adult attachment interview and there was no evidence of continuity.
This means that it is not clear to what extent the quality of early attachment really predicts later development. There may be other important factors.
influence of early attachment Validity issues with retrospective studies (AO3):
limitation: early attachment is assessed retrospectively.
Most research on the link between early attachment and later development are not longitudinal (i.e. they don’t assess attachment in early life and then revisit the same person later in life). Instead researchers usually ask adolescent or adult participants questions about their relationship with parents, and identify attachment type from this. This causes two validity problems. First, asking questions relies on the honesty and accurate perception of the participants. Second, it means it is very hard to know whether what is being assessed is early attachment or in fact adult attachment (see evidence from the Regensburg longitudinal study above).
This means that the measures of early attachment used in most studies may be confounded with other factors making them meaningless.
influence on early attachment Confounding variables (AO3):
limitation: later development is the existence of confounding variables.
Some studies do assess attachment in infancy (e.g. McCarthy on facing page), which means that the assessment of early attachment is valid. However, even these studies may have validity problems because associations between attachment quality and later development may be affected by confounding variables. For example parenting style may influence both attachment quality and later development.
Alternatively genetically-influenced personality may be an influence on both factors.
This means that we can never be entirely sure that it is early attachment and not
some other factor that is influencing later development.
Influence on early attachment Balancing opportunity and risk (AO3):
seems likely that the influence of early attachment is probabilistic (Clarke and Clarke 1998). This means that an insecure attachment does not invariably cause increased risk of later developmental problems - no one is doomed to be the victim of bullying or to never have a successful romantic relationship as a result of their early attachment. It is just a question of increased likelihood.
By knowing someone’s attachment status we have an opportunity to intervene and help their development. However, we may also become too pessimistic and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The love quiz (AO1):
Hazan and Shaver (1987) conducted a classic study of the association between attachment and adult relationships.
the love quiz procedure (AO1):
They analysed 620 replies to a love quiz’ printed in an American local newspaper. The quiz had three sections. The first assessed respondents current or most important relationship. The second part assessed general love experiences such as number of partners. The third section assessed attachment type by asking respondents to choose which of three statements best described their feelings.
findings + conclusion of love quiz (AO1):
of respondents were identified as securely attached, with 25% insecure-avoidant and 19% insecure-resistant. Those reporting secure attachments were the most likely to have good and longer-lasting romantic experiences. The avoidant respondents tended to reveal jealousy and fear of intimacy These findings suggest that patterns of attachment behaviour are reflected in romantic relationships.
