Attachment Flashcards
1
Q
What is an attachment?
A
A close 2-way emotional tie or bond between 2 people in which each person sees the other as essential for their own emotional security. Attachment in humans takes a few months to develop.
2
Q
What is a caregiver-infant interaction?
A
Dynamic interaction between the 2. From birth, babies and their caregiver (typically the mother) spend a lot of time in intense and pleasurable interaction. Caregivers typically pick up on and respond to infant alertness around 2/3 of the time. From around 3 months, this interaction tends to be increasingly frequent and involves close attention to each other’s verbal signs and facial expressions.
3
Q
What is reciprocity?
A
A caregiver-infant interaction is reciprocal when each person responds to the other and elicits a response from them. Both caregiver and child can imitate interactions and they appear to take turns in doing so.
Brazleton et al (1975) described this interaction as a ‘dance’.
4
Q
What is interactional synchrony?
A
When the caregiver and the infant carry out the same interaction at the same time.
Feldman (2007) defines it as the ‘temporal co-ordination of micro-level social behaviour’.
It takes place when the mother and infant interact in such a way that their actions and emotions mirror each other.
5
Q
(+) Meltzoff and Moore (1977) research support for interactional synchrony.
A
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) observed interactional synchrony in infants as young as 2 weeks old. An adult displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions or 1 of 3 distinctive gestures. The child’s response was filmed and identified by independent observers. An association was found between the expression or gesture the adult had displayed and the actions of the babies. This demonstrates the existence of interactional synchrony between caregiver and infant.
6
Q
(+) Isabella et al (1989) research support for interactional synchrony.
A
Interactional synchrony is important for the development of mother-infant attachment. Isabella et al (1989) observed 30 mothers and infants together and assessed the degree of synchrony. The researchers also assessed the quality of mother-infant attachment. They found that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant attachment.
7
Q
(+) Large amounts of supporting research evaluation for caregiver-infant interaction.
A
Many studies of interactions between mothers and infants have shown the same patterns of interaction (Gratier, 2003). This large amount of consistent evidence makes the findings reliable and therefore more likely to be valid.
8
Q
(+) Well-controlled studies evaluation for caregiver-infant interaction.
A
Observations of caregiver-infant interactions have generally well-controlled procedures, with both caregiver and infant being filmed, often from multiple angles. This ensures that fine details of behaviour can be recorded (and later analysed), giving lots of information and thus improving our understanding of caregiver-infant interactions.
9
Q
(+) Good external validity evaluation for caregiver-infant interaction.
A
Babies don’t know that they’re being observed so their behaviour doesn’t change in response to being observed. This means that the behaviour observed and recorded will be their natural behaviour, so the findings about caregiver-infant interactions should generalise to real life.
10
Q
(-/+) Feldman’s descriptive, not explanatory (2012) evaluation for caregiver-infant interaction.
A
(-) Feldman (2012) points out that synchrony (and by implication reciprocity) largely describes behaviours that occur at the same time, but this may not be particularly useful as it doesn’t tell us their full purpose. This limits our understanding of these processes and of caregiver-infant interaction in general. (+) However, there is some evidence that reciprocity and synchrony are helpful in the development of mother-infant attachment, as well as helpful in stress responses, empathy, language and moral development.
11
Q
(-) Hard to know what’s happening when observing infants evaluation for caregiver-infant interaction.
A
It’s difficult to be certain, based on observations, what is taking place from an infant’s perspective. We cannot know for certain that behaviours seen in mother-infant interactions have any special meaning, so cannot be sure if these behaviours are important or not.
12
Q
(-) Socially sensitive research evaluation for caregiver-infant interaction.
A
Research into mother-infant interactions suggests that children may be disadvantaged by particular child-rearing practices. This suggests that mothers shouldn’t return to work too soon and has socially sensitive implications as it implies that if they do return to work too soon, they may in some way be harming their bond with their child and/or the future development of their child.
13
Q
What did Grossman’s study (2002) suggest about the role of the father?
A
He carried out a longitudinal study looking at both parents’ behaviour and its relationship to the quality of children’s attachments into their teens. Quality of infant attachment with mothers was related to children’s attachments in adolescence, suggesting that father attachment was less important. However, the quality of fathers’ play with infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments. This suggests that fathers have a different role in attachment - one that is more to do with play and stimulation, and less to do with nurturing.
14
Q
What did Field’s research (1978) suggest about fathers as primary carers?
A
There is some evidence to suggest that when fathers do take on the role of being the main caregiver, they adopt behaviours more typical of mothers. Field (1978) filmed 4-month-old babies in face-to-face interactions with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiver fathers. Primary caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smiling, imitating and holding infants than secondary caregiver fathers. This behaviour appears to be important in building an attachment with the infant and thus it seems that fathers can be the more nurturing attachment figure. The key to attachment relationship is the level of responsiveness, not the gender.
15
Q
(-) Differences between research into the role of the father evaluation for caregiver-infant attachment.
A
Research into the role of fathers in attachment is confusing because different researchers are interested in different research questions. Some psychologists are interested in understanding the role fathers have as secondary attachment figures and sees fathers behaving differently from mothers and having a distinct role. Other researchers are more concerned with the father as primary attachment figure and have found that fathers can take on a ‘maternal’ role. This is a problem as it means psychologists cannot easily answer the simple question, what is the role of the father?
16
Q
(-) ‘If fathers have a distinct role, why aren’t children without fathers different?’ evaluation for caregiver-infant attachment.
A
Grossman found that fathers as secondary attachment figures had an important role in their children’s development. However, other studies such as MacCallum and Golombok (2004) have found that children growing up in single or same-sex parent families do not develop any differently from those in two-parent heterosexual families. This would seem to suggest that the father’s role as a secondary attachment figure is not important.
17
Q
(-) ‘Why don’t fathers generally become primary attachments?’ evaluation for caregiver-infant attachment.
A
The fact that fathers tend not to become the primary attachment figure could simply be the result of traditional gender roles, in which women are expected to be more caring and nurturing than men. Therefore, fathers simply don’t feel they should act like that. On the other hand, it could be that female hormones, such as oestrogen, create higher levels of nurturing and therefore women are biologically pre-disposed to be the primary attachment figure.
18
Q
What was Schaffer and Emerson’s aim (1964)?
A
They investigated the formation of early attachment and were particularly interested in the age at which they developed, their emotional intensity and who they were directed toward.
19
Q
What was Schaffer and Emerson’s method (1964)?
A
60 babies and their mothers were visited at home every month for the first year and again at 18 months. There were 31 male and 29 female babies, all from Glasgow and the majority were from skilled working-class families. The researchers asked the mothers questions about the kind of protest their babies showed in seven everyday separations, eg. adult leaving the room (a measure of separation anxiety). This was designed to measure the infant’s attachment. The researchers also assessed stranger anxiety - the infant’s anxiety response to unfamiliar adults.
20
Q
What were Schaffer and Emerson’s findings (1964)?
A
Between 25 and 32 weeks of age about 50% of the babies showed signs of separation anxiety towards a particular adult, usually the mother (this is called specific attachment). Attachment tended to be to the caregiver who was most interactive and sensitive to infant signals and facial expressions (ie. reciprocity). This was not necessarily the person with whom the infant spent most time. By the age of 40 weeks, 80% of the babies had a specific attachment and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments.
21
Q
(+) Good external validity evaluation for Schaffer and Emerson’s study.
A
The study was carried out in the families’ own homes and most of the observation’ was done by parents during ordinary activities and reported to the researcher later. This means that the behaviour of the babies was unlikely to be affected by the presence of observers. As there was often no observer, participants are likely to have behaved naturally and so the findings about attachment should generalise to real life.
22
Q
(+) Longitudinal study evaluation for Schaffer and Emerson’s study.
A
The same children were followed up and observed regularly over a long period of time. Longitudinal studies have higher internal validity because they do not have individual differences between participants which means results are more likely to be accurate.
23
Q
(-) Limited sample evaluation for Schaffer and Emerson’s study.
A
All the families were from the same district in the same city and from the same social class. This means that the way they have raised their children may be different to other families from different districts, different cities or from different social classes. This means we cannot be sure that the results of the study can be generalised to others (ie. the stages of attachment may be different in other people).
24
Q
(+) May lack temporal validity evaluation for Schaffer and Emerson’s study.
A
The study was conducted over 50 years ago and child-rearing practices are likely to have changed quite significantly since the 1960s. Therefore, the results may not be able to be generalised to today and may not tell us anything about the stages of attachment formation today.
25
(-) Crude measurements evaluation for Schaffer and Emerson’s study.
Schaffer and Emerson used the basic behaviours of stranger anxiety and separation anxiety to define attachment which has been argued to be too simplistic as measures of attachment. This means that our understanding of the stages of attachment may also be too simplistic.
26
What is Schaffer’s first stage of attachment?
Asocial stage.
Occurs in first few weeks.
Baby recognises and forms bonds with carers.
Baby’s behaviour towards non-human objects and humans is quite similar.
Baby shows some preference for familiar adults in that those individuals find it easier to calm them.
Baby is also happier when in the presence of other humans.
27
What is Schaffer’s second stage of attachment?
Indiscriminate attachment.
From 2-7 months.
Baby shows a preference for people rather than inanimate objects and recognises and prefers familiar adults.
Baby usually accepts cuddles and comfort from any adult and doesn’t usually show separation or stranger anxiety.
Attachment behaviour is indiscriminate because it’s not different towards any one person.
28
What is Schaffer’s third stage of attachment?
Specific attachment.
From around 7 months.
Majority of babies start to display anxiety towards strangers and to become anxious when separated from one particular adult (biological mother in 65% of cases).
At this point, baby is said to have formed a specific attachment and this adult is termed the primary attachment figure.
This person isn’t necessarily the person the child spends the most time with, but the person who offers the most interaction and responds to the baby’s signals with the most skill.
29
What is Schaffer’s fourth stage of attachment?
Multiple attachment stage.
Shortly after 3rd stage (specific attachment) where the baby starts to show attachment behaviour towards one adult, they usually extend this attachment behaviour to multiple attachments with other adults with whom they regularly spend time (called secondary attachment).
In Schaffer and Emerson’s study: 29% of children had secondary attachments within a month of forming a primary attachment, and by the age of about 1 year, the majority of infants had developed multiple attachments.
30
(-) Problem studying the asocial stage evaluation for Schaffer’s stages of attachment.
Very young babies have poor coordination and are pretty much immobile making it very difficult to make any judgements about them based on observations of their behaviour. This does not mean the child's feelings and cognitions are not highly social, but the evidence cannot be relied on.
31
(-) Conflicting evidence on multiple attachments evaluation for Schaffer’s stages of attachment.
It is not clear when children become capable of multiple attachments. Some research indicates that most babies form attachments to a single main caregiver before they become capable of developing multiple attachments (e.g. Bowlby, 1969). Other findings, particularly those from collectivist cultures, show that babies form multiple attachments from the outset (eg. van ljzendoorn et al, 1993). This inconsistent evidence makes the findings unreliable and therefore less likely to be correct (valid).
32
(-) Problems measuring multiple attachment evaluation for Schaffer’s stages of attachment.
There may be a problem with how multiple attachment is assessed. If a baby gets distressed when an individual leaves the room, it does not necessarily mean that the individual is an attachment figure. Bowlby (1969) pointed out that children have playmates as well as attachment figures and may get distressed when a playmate leaves the room but that does not signify attachment. This is a problem for Schaffer and Emerson's stages as their observation does not leave us any way to distinguish between behaviour shown towards secondary attachment figures and playmates.
33
What was Harlow’s procedure (1958)?
16 baby rhesus monkeys were taken from their mothers and kept in a
cage with two substitute ('surrogate') mothers: a 'cloth mother' covered with a soft blanket and a ‘wire mother' incorporating a feeding bottle. The monkeys were kept in these conditions for a period of time and then released into a cage with a group of normally reared monkeys.
34
What were Harlow’s results (1958)?
The baby monkeys cuddled and sought comfort from the cloth mother even
though the wire mother supplied them with milk. When returned to the company of other monkeys, Harlow's monkeys showed signs of dysfunctional behaviour. They were aggressive towards other monkeys, less sociable/unable to form relationships and bred less often. If they did have offspring, some of the deprived monkeys neglected their young whilst others attacked them and, in extreme cases, killed them.
35
What were Harlow’s conclusions (1958)?
1. Baby monkeys do not attach primarily for food. This is inconsistent with learning theory (‘cupboard love’) which sees attachment to the mother simply as a consequence of the need for food.
2. There is a critical period of 90 days for an attachment to form. If an attachment does not form in this time then it cannot form and the damage done by early deprivation became irreversible.
36
(+) Value to Psychology evaluation for Harlow’s research (1958).
Improved our understanding of mother-infant attachment and showed us the importance of the quality of early relationships for later social development (eg. encourages functional behaviours such as sociability, formation of successful peer and sexual relationships, good parenting skills).
37
(+) Practical application to humans and to monkeys evaluation for Harlow’s research (1958).
In humans, his research shows the importance of early relationships so we can educate parents and provide support to improve their quality (eg. through parental leave etc).
In monkeys, his research shows the importance of early relationships so can inform breeding programmes (eg. ensuring that baby monkeys remain with their mother for at least 90 days etc).
38
(+/-) Ethical issues evaluation for Harlow’s research (1958).
(-) Harm to monkeys - short and long term.
(+) However, Harlow may claim that what he learned about the importance of these early relationships may outweigh the harm to the monkeys (cost-benefit analysis).
39
(-) Generalisability evaluation for Harlow’s research (1958).
Humans aren’t the same as monkeys so we cannot be sure if deprivation of early attachment has the same impact on humans so cannot use this evidence to support the importance of early attachment in humans.
40
What was Lorenz’s procedure (1935)?
Randomly divided a clutch of goose eggs. In the control group, half the eggs were hatched with the mother goose in their natural environment. In the experimental group, the other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz.
41
What were Lorenz’s results (1935)?
The experimental group followed Lorenz everywhere whereas the control group followed the mother goose. When the two groups were mixed up, the control group continued to follow their mother and the experimental group continued to follow Lorenz.
42
What were Lorenz’s conclusions (1935)?
1. Imprinting occurs whereby bird species that are mobile from birth attach to and follow the first moving object they see to keep them safe from harm.
2. Imprinting needs to take place with a critical period (which can be as brief as a few hours after hatching in certain species). If imprinting does not occur within the critical period then chicks would not attach at all.
43
What were Lorenz’s findings about sexual imprinting (1935)?
Lorenz found that birds would later display courtship behaviour towards whatever species they had imprinted onto eg. a peacock reared in the reptile house of the zoo who imprinted onto a giant tortoise, would only direct courtship behaviour towards giant tortoises in adulthood. He concluded that this meant he had undergone sexual imprinting.
44
(-) Generalisability evaluation for Lorenz’s research (1935).
Humana beings aren’t the same as birds, so there’s a problem with generalising Lorenz’s findings.
45
(-) Problems with reliability evaluation for Lorenz’s research (1935).
There are problems with reliability as some of Lorenz's observations have been questioned eg. Guiton (1966) found that chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults (as Lorenz predicted), but that with experience, they eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens. This suggests that imprinting doesn’t have a permanent effect on mating and the effect of imprinting is only temporary and can be overridden by environmental experience.
46
(+) Behavioural continuity across species evaluation for animal studies of attachment.
Darwin assumes that basic patterns of behaviour are the same in all species. This is a strength for Harlow and Lorenz’s studies as it suggests that we’re likely to see similar behaviours in humans, so we can generalise findings to attachment in humans.
47
(+) Rapid maturation and quick development cycles in animals evaluation for animal studies of attachment.
It is possible to study several generations. This is an advantage because we can see the impact of early attachment on adult behaviour and across generations.
48
(+) Animals can be reared in controlled environments evaluation for animal studies of attachment.
This is an advantage because we can control key EVs so can be more certain that it’s the changes to early attachment that are affecting later adult behaviour.
49
(+) ‘Lorenz and Harlow’s ideas have influenced the way infants are raised’ evaluation for animal studies of attachment.
The concepts of imprinting and the critical period have influenced the care of newborns in maternity hospitals through skin-to-skin contact as soon as possible with mother (and father). Babies are also kept with mother/father if possible and mother/father are to care for baby asap.
50
(-) More recent contradictory work about the critical period evaluation for animal studies of attachment.
More recent work has suggested that the view of a critical period may be too extreme and over-simplistic and the idea of a critical period has been replaced with the ‘sensitive period’. This suggests that although there are times when infants are more receptive to opportunities for learning or bonding, these opportunities aren’t ‘all or nothing’. An increasing body of evidence suggests that children who fail to form attachments in the first few years can recover socially and emotionally if they receive adequate care when they’re older.
51
What was Bowlby’s evolutionary explanation for attachment?
Bowlby proposed an evolutionary explanation that attachment was innate and gave a survival advantage. Imprinting and attachment evolved because they ensure that young stay close to their caregivers to protect them from harm.
52
What was Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
Bowlby focused on a child's attachment to one particular caregiver (the primary attachment figure) and believed that this attachment was more important than others (= monotropic). Bowly called this person 'the mother' but it need not be the biological mother.
53
What were Bowlby’s 2 laws relating to his monotropic theory?
The law of continuity which stated that the more constant and predictable a child's care, the better the quality of their attachment
The law of accumulated separation which stated that the effects of every separation from the mother add up (the best outcome is zero separation).
54
What are social releasers?
Babies are born with a set of social releasers which are innate behaviours like smiling, cooing and gripping. These encourage attention from adults and their function is to make the adult feel love towards the baby and thus activate the adult attachment system.
Attachment is reciprocal; both motherand baby have an innate predisposition to become attached. The interplay between infant and adult attachment systems gradually builds the relationship between infant and caregiver and begins in the early weeks of life.
55
What was Bowlby’s critical period?
Bowlby proposed that there is a critical period of around two years when the infant attachment system is active (although he viewed this as more of a sensitive period). A child is maximally sensitive at the age of two and, if an attachment is not formed by this time, they will find it much more difficult to form one later.
56
What was Bowlby’s internal working model?
Bowlby proposed that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary caregiver. He called this an internal working model because it serves as a model for what relationships are like and has a powerful effect on the nature of the child's future relationships.
The internal working model also affects the child's future ability to be a parent themselves. People tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being parented. This explains why children from functional families tend to have functional families themselves.
57
(-) Counter-evidence for monotropy evaluation.
Bowlby’s view that a child formed one special attachment wasn’t supported by Schaffer and Emerson. They found that although most babies did attach to one person at first, they also found that a significant minority seemed to be able to form multiple attachments at the same time. This suggests that babies don’t initially form one primary attachment as Bowlby suggests.
58
(+) Support for social releasers evaluation.
There is clear evidence to show that cute infant behaviours are intended to initiate social interaction and that doing so is important to the baby.
Brazleton et al (1975) observed mothers and babies during their interactions and found evidence of interactional synchrony. They later instructed the primary attachment figures to ignore their babies' social releasers. The babies initially showed some distress but, when the attachment figures continued to ignore the baby, some responded by curling up and lying motionless.
The fact that the children responded so strongly supports Bowlby’s ideas about the significance of infant social behaviour in eliciting caregiving/forming an attachment.
59
(+) Support for internal working models evaluation (Baily et al, 2007).
Baily et al (2007) assessed 99 mothers with one-year-old babies on the quality of their attachment to their own mothers using a standard interview procedure. They also assessed the attachment of the babies to the mothers by observation. It was found that the mothers who reported poor attachments to their own parents in the interviews were much more likely to have children classified as poor according to the observations. This supports the idea that the IWM has a strong effect on the nature of the child’s future relationships and also affects the child’s future ability to be a parent themselves.
60
(-) Monotropy is socially sensitive evaluation.
Monotropy is a controversial idea because it has major implications for the lifestyle choices mothers make when their children are young. Burman (1994) suggests that the implications of Bowlby’s theory for mothers who have to work are that they’re responsible for anything bad that happens in their child’s life. With most women having or choosing to work in 21st century Britain, this suggests that the theory may lack temporal validity as most mothers now work, but most children go in to develop normal attachments.
61
(-) Temperament may be as important as attachment evaluation for Bowlby’s IWM.
Kagan (1982) suggested that temperamental differences in infants (eg. who are most anxious) are actually a better explanation of later behaviour. This weakens Bowlby’s theory as it implies that the IWM is not the major factor in determining future relationships.
62
What is Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation based on?
The idea that the continual presence of nurture/comfort/love from a mother (or mother-substitute) is essential for normal psychological (emotional and intellectual) development.
63
What is separation and what is its effect?
Separation is when the child isn’t in the presence of the primary attachment figure.
Brief separations, especially those where the child has a substitute caregiver, aren’t significant for development.
Extended separation can lead to deprivation.
64
What is deprivation?
Deprivation occurs when a child loses an element of care from their primary attachment figure in the critical period and has serious consequences.
65
What is the critical period for psychological development and what happens if a child is separated from their mother during it?
The first 30 months (2.5 years) are a critical period for psychological development. If a child is separated from their mother for an extended period during this time and has no suitable care, they become deprived.
66
What is the effect of deprivation on intellectual development?
Deprivation can lead to mental retardation, characterised by abnormally low IQ eg. Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQ in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered. Institutionalised children were less likely to have had a good standard of emotional care and thus more likely to be deprived of emotional care, so were more likely to suffer from the effects of deprivation.
67
What is the effect of deprivation on emotional development?
Deprivation can lead to affectionless psychopathy. This prevents the development of normal relationships and is associated with criminality. Affectionless psychopaths may be more likely to engage in criminal activity because they cannot empathise with the feelings of victims and lack remorse for their actions. Therefore, guilt and remorse don’t act as the usual barriers that prevent people from committing crime.
68
What is affectionless psychopathy?
The inability to experience guilt or empathy towards others. This prevents the development of normal relationships and is associated with criminality.
69
What was Bowlby’s aim for his 44 thieves study (1944)?
To investigate the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation.
70
What was Bowlby’s procedure for his 44 thieves study (1944)?
The sample consisted of 44 teenagers accused of stealing. The '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 separation from their mothers. A control group of non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people was set up to see how often maternal separation/deprivation occurred in the children who were not thieves.
71
What were Bowlby’s findings for his 44 thieves study (1944)?
14 of the 44 thieves were affectionless psychopaths, 12 of which had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first two years of their lives.
5 of the remaining 30 thieves had experienced separations.
2 out of 44 in the control group had experienced separations.
72
What was Bowlby’s conclusion for his 44 thieves study (1944)?
Prolonged early separation/deprivation causes affectionless psychopathy as the majority of children who’d suffered separation went on to develop affectionless psychopathy (12/19).
73
Why can Bowlby’s conclusion for his 44 thieves study (1944) be weakened?
Not all children who were separated suffered from affectionless psychopathy, suggesting that the link between the two is weak.
Also, some children who didn’t experience separation suffered from affectionless psychopathy.
74
(-) Confounding variables evaluation for maternal deprivation.
Bowlby used several sources of evidence for maternal deprivation including:
A - war orphans who were traumatised and often had poor after-care. This lowers validity of the maternal deprivation hypothesis as the orphans were traumatised from dealing with extreme circumstances. It could be a trauma response, not deprivation of maternal care.
B - Institutionalised children who grew up from birth in poor quality institutions and were deprived of many aspects of care, not just maternal care. This lowers validity of maternal deprivation as there’s no way to determine if their behaviour was due to a lack of maternal care or lack of general care.
75
(-) Flawed methodology evaluation for Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944).
The 44 thieves study had some major design flaws, most importantly researcher bias as Bowlby himself carried out the assessments for affectionless psychopathy and the family interviews. Bowlby may have interpreted the data in a way to hit his aim, so lowers internal validity.
Also, the thieves may give socially desirable responses or deliberately lie as they’re answering questions about negative characteristics which they know are undesirable so therefore may not be accurately measuring affectionless psychopathy. Family may give socially desirable responses as they’re answering questions about their parenting. May have forgotten periods of separation as these events occurred long ago, so again may not be accurately measuring separation.
Therefore, Bowlby’s findings may not be reliable (and so not valid) as to the effect of deprivation, so can’t be sure it causes affectionless psychopathy.
76
(-) Counter-evidence evaluation for Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944).
Lewis (1954) partially replicated the 44 thieves' study on 500 young people. She found that a history of early prolonged separation from the mother did not predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships. This suggests that other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation and weakens the link between early separation/deprivation and the effects on emotional development.
77
(-) ‘The idea of a critical period is inaccurate’ evaluation for Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944), use Koluchova to support.
Bowlby believed that prolonged separation inevitably caused damage if it took place within the critical period. However, later research has shown that damage is not inevitable suggesting that we should think of this early time as more of a 'sensitive period' (where attachments are best formed, but not exclusively limited to this window).
Koluchova (1976) reported the case of twin boys from Czechoslovakia who were kept locked in a cupboard and thus isolated from other people from the age of 18 months until they were seven years old. Subsequently, they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully. This could lower validity of the maternal deprivation theory as it shows that the critical period identified by Bowlby is inaccurate as the effects of deprivation can be overcome and therefore aren’t inevitable. However, there is an issue with this evidence: the twin boys had each other and therefore may not have been fully deprived. This means we can’t generalise this to other individuals, so cannot be sure that the effects of deprivation aren’t inevitable.
78
(+) Support from animal studies evaluation for Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944).
Levy et al (2003) found that separating baby rats from their mothers for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development, though not other aspects of development. This supports the maternal deprivation hypothesis as it strengthens the link between deprivation and long-term effects on social development. It also shows that the effects of deprivation are permanent, implying that they’re inevitable. However, rats aren’t the same as humans so we can’t use this evidence to support the link between deprivation and long-term effects on development in humans. Also, the study only shows that deprivation influenced social development, not intellectual or other elements of emotional development. Therefore we can’t use it to support the link between deprivation and long-term effects on intellectual development or between deprivation and other elements of emotional development.
79
(-) Failure to distinguish between deprivation and privation evaluation for Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944).
Rutter (1976) distinguished between deprivation and privation: deprivation refers to the loss of some element of care from an attachment figure and privation refers to an attachment never forming at all. He argued that when Bowlby used deprivation, he actually meant privation and thus the long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation was actually associated with privation. This means the link between deprivation and long-term consequences was incorrect and thus invalid (the link should be with privation and long-term consequences).
80
What was Dollard and Miller’s learning theory (1950)?
Dollard and Miller (1950) proposed a learning theory or 'cupboard love' approach to attachment which emphasises the importance of the caregiver as a food provider.
81
How does classical conditioning work in Dollard and Miller’s learning theory (1950)?
Food serves as an unconditioned stimulus which leads to the unconditioned response of pleasure. The caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus but when they consistently provide food they become associated with 'food' and the caregiver becomes a conditioned stimulus. Once conditioning has taken place the caregiver produces a conditioned stimulus of pleasure.
82
How does operant conditioning work in Dollard and Miller’s learning theory (1950)?
Crying leads to comfort or feeding from the caregiver which positively reinforces the crying. The baby then repeats the crying towards the caregiver who responds with comforting behaviour (continuing to positively reinforce the crying). The caregiver is also negatively reinforced because the crying stops. This dual reinforcement strengthens an attachment.
83
How did Sears et al (1957) suggest that attachment is a secondary drive?
Hunger is a primary drive which is an innate biological motivator to eat to avoid the hunger drive. Sears et al (1957) suggested that, as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to the caregiver.
Therefore, attachment is a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary hunger drive.
84
(+/-) Face validity evaluation for Dollard and Miller’s learning theory (1950).
(+) The theory is said to have face validity, meaning that it seems to make sense and we can generally agree with the principles of learning theory.
(-) However, it’s not a strong supporting point as just because something makes doesn’t mean it’s correct/valid.
85
(+/-) Pavlov and Skinner as supporting evidence evaluation for Dollard and Miller’s learning theory (1950).
(+) The work of Pavlov and Skinner has provided substantial evidence for the principles of learning theory and their findings can be applied to attachment behaviours.
(-) However, it’s not a very strong supporting point as it only provides evidence for classical and operant conditioning in general and not for their involvement in attachment. We can’t be sure that learning theory can explain attachment based on this evidence.
86
(-) Counter-evidence from animal research evaluation for Dollard and Miller’s learning theory (1950).
A range of animal studies have shown that animals don’t necessarily attach to (or imprint on) those who feed them. In Harlow’s research, baby monkeys spent more hours (18) per day cuddling a ‘cloth’ mother rather than a ‘wire’ mother that gave food. This suggests that attachment is more about comfort than feeding, rewards and punishment as suggested by learning theory. However, he studied monkeys and not humans, so we can’t be sure that humans attach for comfort based on Harlow’s evidence.
87
(-) Counter-evidence from human research evaluation for Dollard and Miller’s learning theory (1950).
Research with human infants also shows that feeding doesn’t appear to be an important factor in humans. In Schaffer and Emerson’s study, many babies developed a primary attachment to their biological mother even though others did most of the feeding (more than half of the infants weren’t attached to the person primarily involved in feeding). This suggests that feeding isn’t the key element to attachment.
88
(-) ‘Learning theory ignores other factors associated with forming attachments’ evaluation for Dollard and Miller’s learning theory (1950).
Research into early infant-caregiver interaction suggests that the quality of attachment is associated with factors like developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony. In addition, studies have shown that the best quality attachments are with sensitive carers that pick up infant signals and respond appropriately. If attachment developed purely as a result of feeding, there would be no purpose for these complex interactions and we wouldn’t expect to find relationships between them and the quality of infant-caregiver attachment. It also largely ignores biology, suggesting that learning theory for attachment is, at best, an incomplete explanation.
89
(+/-) Newer learning theory explanation evaluation for Dollard and Miller’s learning theory (1950).
Hay and Vespo (1988) proposed a social learning theory explanation for infant-caregiver attachment. They suggested that parents model attachment behaviour (such as hugging other family members) and children are both vicariously reinforced and directly reinforced when they display attachment of their own.
Direct reinforcement - reward child with praise when displaying attachment behaviour, more likely to repeat it.
Vicarious reinforcement - child sees other family member who’s a role model being rewarded (eg. praise or attention) for displaying attachment behaviour, so imitates this behaviour.
90
What was Ainsworth’s aim (1969)?
To assess the quality of a child’s attachment to a caregiver.
91
What was Ainsworth’s procedure (1969)?
A controlled (laboratory) observation was carried out using an unfamiliar playroom with a two-way mirror so researchers could observe the infant's (9-18 months) behaviour. They measured:
Proximity seeking - how close the infant stays to the caregiver.
Exploration and secure-base behaviour - how much the child explores the room away from the caregiver and how often they 'check in' with their caregiver (their secure-base) to make them feel safe.
Stranger anxiety - signs of anxiety when a stranger approaches.
Separation anxiety - signs of protest when separated from the caregiver.
Response to reunion - how the child responds when reunited with the caregiver after separation.
The child and caregiver enter the unfamiliar playroom, which is then followed by seven episodes, each lasting three minutes.
92
What were Ainsworth’s 7 episodes during the procedure (1969)?
The child and caregiver enter the unfamiliar playroom, which is then followed by seven episodes, each lasting three minutes.
1. The child is encouraged to explore (measures exploration and secure-base behaviour).
2. A stranger comes in and tries to interact with the child (measures stranger anxiety).
3. The caregiver leaves the child and the stranger together (measures separation and stranger anxiety).
4. The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves (measures reunion, exploration and secure-base behaviour).
5. The caregiver leaves the child alone (measures separation anxiety).
6. The stranger returns (measures stranger anxiety).
7. The caregiver returns and is reunited with the child (measures reunion behaviour).
93
What were Ainsworth’s findings (1969)?
Three main types of attachment were found:
Insecure-avoidant attachment (type A) = 22% (20-25% of British children). Children explored freely but did not seek proximity or show secure-base behaviour. They showed little or no reaction when their caregiver left and made little effort to make contact when the caregiver returned. They also showed minimal stranger anxiety. They did not require comfort at the reunion stage.
Secure attachment (type B) = 66% (~60-75% of British children). These children explored happily but regularly went back to the caregiver thus demonstrating proximity-seeking and secure-base behaviour. They usually showed moderate separation distress and moderate stranger anxiety. Securely attached children required and accepted comfort from the caregiver in the reunion stage.
Insecure-resistant attachment (type C) = 12% (~3% of British children). Children sought greater proximity than others and explored less. They showed high levels of stranger and separation distress but they resisted comfort when reunited with their carer.
94
What were Ainsworth’s conclusions (1969)?
There is an association between the caregiver's behaviour and the infant's attachment type, suggesting that the caregiver's behaviour is important in determining attachment type.
The majority of children are securely attached.
95
Describe the behaviours of insecure-avoidant attachment (type A).
Proximity seeking - low (don’t stay close to caregiver).
Exploration - high (explore the environment).
Secure-base behaviour - low (don’t check back in with caregiver).
Stranger anxiety - low (don’t get upset).
Separation anxiety - low (don’t get upset).
Reunion behaviour - don’t require comfort.
96
Describe the behaviours of secure attachment (type B).
Proximity seeking - moderate (explore but come back to caregiver).
Exploration - high (explore the environment).
Secure-base behaviour - high (regularly checks back in with caregiver).
Stranger anxiety - moderate (gets upset but is easy to soothe).
Separation anxiety - moderate (gets upset but is easy to soothe).
Reunion behaviour - requires and accepts comfort.
97
Describe the behaviours of insecure-resistant attachment (type C).
Proximity seeking - high (stay close to caregiver).
Exploration - low (don’t explore and stay close to caregiver).
Secure-base behaviour - high (regularly checks back in with caregiver).
Stranger anxiety - high (very upset and difficult to soothe).
Separation anxiety - high (very upset and difficult to soothe).
Reunion behaviour - requires but resists comfort.
98
(+) Predictive validity evaluation for Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (1969).
Attachment type is a valid predictor of later development:
Secure babies tend to have better outcomes such as success at school and developing positive romantic relationships and friendships in adulthood.
Insecure-resistant babies tend to have the worst outcomes such as bullying in later adulthood (Kokkinos, 2007)
and adult mental health problems (Ward et al, 2006).
This is evidence for the validity of the concept because it can explain subsequent outcomes (high explanatory power). It also means it’s useful for helping to inform child-rearing behaviour.
99
(+) High inter-rater validity evaluation for Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (1969).
Different observers watch the same children and generally agree on what attachment type to classify them with eg. Bick et al (2012) looked at inter-rater reliability in a team of trained strange situation observers and found agreement on attachment type for 94% of tested babies.
This is because the Strange Situation takes place under controlled conditions and behavioural categories are operationalised.
100
(-) Culture-bound evaluation for Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (1969).
Ainsworth conducted her original research in the USA so may be culturally biased. Cultural differences in childhood experiences may mean children respond differently to the strange situation and caregivers from different cultures behave differently in the strange situation. Eg. Takahashi (1990) suggested that the strange situation does not work in Japan because Japanese mothers are rarely separated from their babies so there are very high levels of separation anxiety. Also, in the reunion stage, Japanese mothers rushed to the baby and scooped them up, meaning the child's response was hard to observe. This is a weakness because it would be unreasonable to make generalisations about all infants and their behaviour based on this sample. The study and its findings are restricted to American infants, meaning the findings and conclusions are culturally biased.
101
(-) Reliability of overall attachment type evaluation for Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (1969).
The strange situation only measures one particular relationship (and thus attachment type) and not general attachment type. It has been found that infants behave differently depending on whom they are with eg. they may be secure with their mother but insecure avoidant with father. This may lower the reliability as attachment type may be inconsistent between caregivers and thus may not be a reliable measurement of the child’s overall attachment type.
102
(-) Incomplete explanation evaluation for Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (1969).
Main and Solomon (1986) found that a small number of infants displayed disorganised behaviour where they showed no consistent pattern and fitted none of the three main attachments. They suggested these children were a fourth attachment type: insecure disorganised.
103
(-) Over-simplified explanation evaluation for Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (1969).
Infants within any given category differ from each other in their attachment behaviour. For example, 2 infants may be classified as showing avoidant attachment, but one might display much more avoidant behaviour. This is a weakness because it categorises all children into 1 of 3 categories and doesn’t differentiate between individuals within each category in terms of severity of attachment behaviours. This is over-simplistic as it implies that all children within one type are the same, which is highly unlikely to be correct.
104
(-/+) Low ecological validity evaluation for Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (1969).
The behaviour of the participants being observed may be affected. The caregiver may behave differently because they know they’re being observed. The child may behave differently because they’re in an unfamiliar setting. This may lower its ecological validity as it may not reflect the usual everyday behaviour between infants and caregivers and thus may not give a valid measurement of attachment type. (+) However, although the playroom is unfamiliar, they’ll come across similar unfamiliar settings in their life (eg. going to nursery for the first time). This suggests that the child’s behaviour will reflect how they would act in real life, suggesting the ecological validity hasn’t been lowered.
105
(-) Not measuring attachment evaluation for Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (1969).
The strange situation measures anxiety and how a baby responds to an unusual situation which Kagan (1982) suggests is a measurement of temperament (the genetically influenced personality of the child) not attachment type. This would lower internal validity as it’s not actually measuring what it claims to measure. This would lead to invalid attachment types.
106
What was Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s aim (1988)?
Looked at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments in a range of countries as well as differences within the same countries.
107
What was Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s procedure (1988)?
Carried out a meta-analysis of 32 studies (involving 1990 children) from 8 different countries where the strange situation had been used to investigate the proportions of infants with different attachment types.
Secure - most common in all countries but varied from a high of 75% in Britain to a low of 50% in China.
Insecure-resistant - least common overall and in most countries except Israel, Japan and China. The proportions varied from a high of 30% in Israel to a low of 3% in Britain.
Insecure-avoidant - second-most common overall and in most countries except Israel, Japan and China. The proportions varied from a high of 35% in West Germany to a low of 5% in Japan.
Variations between results of studies within the same country were 150% greater than those between countries eg. in the USA, one study found 46% securely attached compared to another that found 90%.
108
What was Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s conclusion (1988)?
There is a wide variation between the proportions of attachment types in different cultures. Secure attachment is most common universally, but western countries tend to show more insecure-avoidant and eastern countries tend to show more insecure-resistant.
109
What was Simonella et al’s procedure (2014)?
Assessed 76 12-month olds using the Strange Situation in Italy to see whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types was reliable. They compared their findings for the percentages of attachment types with previous findings and saw if they were similar/consistent.
110
What were Simonella et al’s findings (2014)?
50% were secure which was a lower rate of secure attachment than found in many studies (36% insecure-avoidant and 14% insecure-resistant).
The results weren’t reliable as their findings for the percentages of attachment types weren’t similar/were inconsistent with previous studies.
111
What was Simonella et al’s conclusion (2014)?
Cultural changes can have a large effect on changes in rates of attachment types, may be due to changes in child rearing practices such as increasing numbers of mothers of very young children working long hours and use professional childcare.
112
What was Jin et al’s procedure (2012)?
The Strange Situation was used to assess 87 children in Korea to compare the proportions of attachment types to other studies.
113
What were Jin et al’s findings (2012)?
Most infants were secure and overall proportions of insecure and secure babies were similar to those in most countries.
More of those classified as insecurely attached were resistant and only one child was avoidant.
114
What was Jin et al’s conclusion (2012)?
This distribution is similar to the distribution of attachment types found in Japan which could be explained by the fact that Japan and Korea have similar child rearing styles.
115
What were 2 overall conclusions from cultural variations in attachment?
Secure attachment is the universal norm supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal.
Cultural practices have an influence on attachment type due to the variations of attachment types seen.
116
(+) Large samples evaluation for cultural variations in attachment.
Meta-analysis allows for a very large sample (eg 1990 children and their attachment figure in Van Ijzendoorn). Larger samples increase internal validity be reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by bad methodology or unusual participants. They’re more likely to be representative.
117
(-) Samples tend to be unrepresentative of culture evaluation for cultural variations in attachment.
Comparisons made are between countries, not cultures. Within any country there are many different cultures, with different child-rearing styles eg. an analysis found that distributions of attachment type in Tokyo were similar to the western studies whereas a more rural setting in Japan had an over-representation of insecure-resistant individuals. One small sample within a country is unlikely to be representative of any specific culture, or any specific child-rearing style. This means that comparisons between countries may have little meaning - the particular cultural characteristics of the sample need to be specified.
118
(-) Biased methodology evaluation for cultural variations in attachment.
The strange situation was developed by an American researcher based on British theory (Bowlby) and there is a question over whether Anglo-American theories and assessments can be applied to other cultures. Trying to apply a theory or technique designed for one culture to another is known as imposed etic and can lead to invalid findings and/or conclusions e.g. according to Ainsworth's findings a lack of separation anxiety and lack of pleasure on reunion indicate an insecure attachment. However, in Germany, this behaviour might be seen more as independence than avoidance and hence not a sign of insecurity within that cultural context.
119
(-) Nature or nurture evaluation for cultural variations in attachment.
Research has found that attachment does not vary much throughout the world which seems to support Bowlby's idea that attachment was innate and universal. However, Van ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg suggest that attachment similarities are due to the media and how they project similar images worldwide of attachment. We cannot be sure if the lack of variation is due to biology (nature) or environment (nurture). Therefore, we cannot be sure what factors influence the development of attachment the most.
120
(-) Strange Situation lacks internal validity evaluation for cultural variations in attachment.
If Kagan (1986) is correct that the Strange Situation is measuring temperament and not attachment this suggests that all the test is actually measuring is anxiety. This means conclusions are about temperance and anxiety and thus tell us little about how attachment varies between cultures.
121
What is meant by institutionalisation?
Refers to a child growing up in an institutional setting such as a hospital or orphanage with little emotional care or without a single constant attachment figure.
122
What was Rutter et al’s procedure (2011)?
Followed 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain to test to what extent good care could make up for poor early institutional experiences. Physical, cognitive and emotional development were assessed at the age of 4, 6, 11 and 15 years. They were compared to a control group of 52 British children adopted around the same time.
123
What were Rutter et al’s findings (2011)?
When they first arrived in the UK, 50% of adoptees showed signs of mental retardation and the majority were severely undernourished.
At 11, the adopted children showed differential rates of recovery that were related to their age of adoption:
IQ:
The mean IQ of those adopted before the age of six months was 102.
The mean IQ of those adopted between six months and two years was 86.
The mean IQ of those adopted after two years of age was 77.
These IQ differences remained at age 16.
Attachment:
Children adopted before the age of six months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Children adopted after the age of six months showed signs of disinhibited attachment. Symptoms include attention seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed discriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
124
What was Rutter et al’s conclusion (2011)?
Institutionalisation has significant negative long-term effects on children's attachment and other areas of development (such as IQ).
Overall, there was a positive correlation between time spent institutionalised and the severity of the long-term effects eg. the longer a child is institutionalised the more severe the long-term effects. There’s a negative correlation between time spend institutionalised and IQ (the longer a child is institutionalised, the lower their IQ).
125
What was Zeanah et al’s procedure (2005)?
Used the strange situation to assess attachment type in 95 children aged 12-31 months who had spent most (an average of 90%) of their lives in institutional care. They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution. Carers were also asked about whether the child displayed any of the characteristics of disinhibited attachment such as clinginess and/or attention seeking behaviour directed inappropriately at all adults.
126
What were Zeanah et al’s findings (2005)?
19% of the institutional group were securely attached and 65% were classified with disorganised attachment.
74% of the control group were securely attached.
Features of disinhibited attachment were found in 44% of the institutional group compared to less than 20% in the control group.
127
What was Zeanah et al’s conclusion (2005)?
Institutionalisation has a significant negative effect on children’s attachment type.
128
What is disinhibited attachment (emotional development)?
Unusual behaviour characterised by children who are equally friendly and affectionate towards people they know and strangers.
Ainsworth found that most children showed some stranger anxiety. Only insecure-avoidant children showed little stranger anxiety, and this accounted for only 22% of children.
Rutter (2006) explained disinhibited attachment as an adaption to living with multiple carers during the sensitive period. In poor quality institutions like those in Romania, a child might have 50 carers, none of whom gave them enough consistent care to form a secure attachment.
129
What is disorganised attachment (emotional development)?
Stems from intense fear, often as a result of childhood trauma, neglect or abuse. Adults with this style of insecure attachment tend to feel that they don’t deserve love or closeness in a relationship.
130
What is mental retardation (intellectual development)?
Rutter found that although most children had signs of retardation, most of those adopted before they were six months old caught up with the control group by age four. Therefore, damage to intellectual development as a result if institutionalisation can be recovered provided adoption takes place before the age of six months (the age at which attachments form).
131
(+) Real-life application evaluation for Romanian orphan studies.
Langton (2006) found that the study of the Romanian orphans had led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions eg. children's homes avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child and each child is given a key worker which means they have the chance to develop normal attachments, helping to avoid disinhibited attachment.
132
(+) Internal validity evaluation for Romanian orphan studies.
The Romanian orphans allowed researchers to study institutionalisation without some significant confounding variables. Previous orphan studies used children who had been traumatised by abuse, neglect or bereavement before they were institutionalised. These factors acted as a confounding variables making it difficult to know if mental retardation and disinhibited attachment were a result of institutionalisation or a result of previous trauma. As the Romanian orphans were largely adopted because their families couldn’t financially support them, they were much less likely to have suffered abuse, neglect or bereavement and therefore much less likely to be previously traumatised. Therefore these confounding variables aren’t present in the Romanian orphan studies, so we can be more certain that it’s institutionalisation that’s causing mental retardation and disinhibited attachment.
133
(+) Lacks generalisability evaluation for Romanian orphan studies.
Romanian orphanages had particularly poor standards of care, especially in forming relationships with the children, and extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation. These conditions were not typical of orphanages and therefore the results of these studies cannot be applied to other institutions. This limits our understanding of the typical effects of institutionalisation.
134
(+/-) Temperament evaluation for Romanian orphan studies.
In Rutter's study, children were not randomly assigned to conditions meaning there could be confounding variables such as temperament (eg. more sociable children are more likely to be adopted early). This lowers internal validity meaning we cannot be sure if it’s institutionalisation or temperament that’s causing mental retardation and disinhibited attachment. Therefore, we’re less sure that the effects of institutionalisation found by Rutter are valid.
Zeanah did use random allocation to either fostering or institutionalisation which removes the confounding variable of parents choosing a particular child based on temperament. Therefore we can be more certain that it is institutionalisation which is causing mental retardation and disinhibited attachment. However this raises ethical issues that those children who were randomly allocation to the institutionalisation group suffered long-term psychological harm in terms of mental retardation and disinhibited attachment.
135
(-) Long-term effects of institutionalisation are unclear evaluation for Romanian orphan studies.
Although these studies have followed children who were adopted into their teens, it is still too early to say what the long-term effects are and there will need to be continual follows- ups throughout their adult lives to make firm conclusions.
136
How are relationships in later childhood associated with attachment type?
Attachment type is associated with the quality of peer relationships in childhood and involvement in bullying:
Securely attached infants tend to go on to form the best quality childhood friendships and are very unlikely to be involved in bullying.
Insecurely attached infants later have friendship difficulties and insecure-avoidant children were the most likely to be victim of bullying and insecure-resistant children were most likely to be bullies.
137
How did McCarthy’s (1999) study research attachment and romantic relationships in adulthood?
McCarthy (1999) studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when they were infants to establish their early attachment type. They found:
Securely attached infants had the best adult friendships and romantic relationships.
Insecure-resistant infants had problems maintaining friendships.
Insecure-avoidant infants struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships.
Supports IWM that primary/early attachment acts as a template for later relationships.
138
What was Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) procedure to study attachment and romantic relationships in adulthood?
Hazan and Shaver (1987) investigated the association between attachment and adult relationships.
Analysed 620 replies to a three section ‘love quiz' printed in an American newspaper.
The first section assessed their current or most important relationship. The second part assessed general love experiences eg. number of partners. The third section assessed attachment type by asking respondents to choose which of three statements best described their feelings.
139
What were Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) findings for attachment and romantic relationships in adulthood?
56% of respondents were securely attached, 25% insecure-avoidant and 19% insecure-resistant.
Secure respondents were the most likely to have good and longer lasting romantic experiences (~6% had experienced divorce).
Insecure-avoidant respondents tended to reveal jealousy and fear of intimacy (~12% had experienced divorce).
Insecure-resistant respondents tended to reveal obsessiveness and jealousy (~10% had experienced divorce).
140
What was Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) conclusion for attachment and romantic relationships in adulthood?
Patterns of early attachment behaviour are reflected in later romantic relationships. This supports Bowlby’s IWM that primary/early attachment acts as a template for later relationships.
141
What was Baily et al’s (2007) procedure for attachment and parenting in adulthood?
People base their parents style on their IWM so attachment type tends to be passed down through generations.
Measured the attachment of 99 mothers to their babies and to their own mothers. Mother-baby attachment was assessed using the strange situation and mother-own mother attachment was assessed using an adult attachment interview.
142
What were Baily et al’s (2007) findings for attachment and parenting in adulthood?
The majority of women had the same attachment classification both to their babies and their own mothers.
143
What was Baily et al’s (2007) conclusion for attachment and parenting in adulthood?
Supports the IWM that the primary attachment type acts as a template for future relationships.
144
(-) Reliability between studies evaluation for influence of early attachment on later relationships.
Some studies (eg. McCarthy) demonstrate continuity of attachment type and support internal working models.
However, others do not: Zimmerman (2000) assessed infant attachment type and adolescent attachment to parents and found very little relationship between quality of infant and adolescent attachment. As results between studies are inconsistent, the evidence is unreliable. We’d expect to find continuity of attachment if IWMs were important in attachment. Zimmerman’s findings suggest they aren’t important which weakens the IWM’s validity.
145
(-) Validity evaluation for influence of early attachment on later relationships.
Most studies of attachment assess infant-parent attachment by means of interview or questionnaire. This lowers the findings’ validity as respondents may not be honest or have a realistic view of their own relationships. Additionally, as most of these studies are conducted retrospectively, respondents may not have accurate recollections. Therefore findings may not accurately reflect the correct attachment type. If findings don’t accurately reflect the correct attachment type then we cannot use these findings to make accurate conclusions about the influence of early attachment on later relationships.
146
(-) Cause and effect evaluation for influence of early attachment on later relationships.
Infant attachment type is correlated with the quality of later relationships, but this is not necessarily causal. Other factors such as parenting style or temperament might have a direct effect on both attachment and the ability to form relationships with others. Therefore, we cannot be sure if Bowlby's IWM is accurate and is causing later outcomes.
147
(-) Probabilistic evaluation for influence of early attachment on later relationships.
Clarke and Clarke (1998) suggest that a poor attachment in early childhood does not necessarily mean the individual is doomed to have bad relationships, they are just at a greater risk of problems. They argue that it is too pessimistic and negative. This may lower the validity of Bowlby’s IWM as if poor attachment doesn’t lead to negative relationships then this suggests that Bowlby’s IWM is incorrect.
148
(-) Methodological issues evaluation for influence of early attachment on later relationships.
Asking people to report about their internal working models is problematic as these models are supposed to be unconscious. This means that we cannot be sure that evidence is reliable as people can only report what they are aware of as people are relying on their conscious understanding.
