Attachment Flashcards
Introduction to attachment
Caregiver-infant interactions = from an early age babies have meaningful social interactions with their carers > it is believed that these interactions have important functions for the child’s social development and for the development of caregiver-infant attachment
Reciprocity = description of how two people interact - mother-infant interaction is reciprocal in that both infant and mother respond to each others signals and elicit a response from the other > babies have periodic ‘alert phases’ and signal that they are ready for interaction which mothers respond to > from around three months, reciprocal interaction tends to be increasingly frequent which involves close attention to each others verbal signals and facial expressions
Interactional synchrony = mother and infant reflect both the actions and emotions of the other and do this in a coordinated (synchronised) way > two people are said to be ‘synchronised’ when they carry out the same action > takes place when mother and infant interact in such way that their actions and emotions mirror each other
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) - observed the beginnings of interactional synchrony in infants as young as two weeks old > an adult displayed one of three facial expressions or one of the three distinctive gestures and the child’s response was filmed > an association was found between the expression/gesture the adult had displayed and the action of the child
Believed that interactional synchrony is important for the role of development of mother-infant attachment > Isabella et al. (1989) observed 30 mothers and infants together and assessed the degree of synchrony and the quality of mother-infant attachment > researchers found that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant attraction
Evaluation of an introduction to attachment
+ Research uses well-controlled procedures > mother-infant interactions are often filmed usually from multiple angles > this ensures that very fine details of behaviour can be recorded and later analysed > also, babies do not know they are being observed so their behaviour does not change in response to the controlled observation which is genuinely a problem for observational research > strength because it means the studies have good validity
- It is hard to know what is happening when observing infants > studies involving observation of interactions between mothers and infants have shown the same patterns of interaction > However, what is being observed is merely hand movements or changes in expression > extremely difficult to be certain, based on these observations, what is taking place from the infant’s perspective > this means we cannot be certain that behaviours seen in mother-infant interactions have a special meaning
- Observations do not tell us the purpose of synchrony and reciprocity > Feldman (2012) points out that synchrony simply describes behaviours that occur at the same time > although they can be reliably observed, this may not be particularly useful as it does not tell us their purpose > However, there is some evidence that reciprocal interaction and synchrony are helpful in the development of mother-infant attachment, stress responses, empathy language and moral development
- Research into mother-infant interactions is socially sensitive > this is because it suggests that children may be disadvantaged by particular child-rearing practises > specifically, mothers who return to work shortly after a child is born restrict the opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony > suggests mothers should not return to work so soon - this has obvious socially sensitive implications
Attachment figures
Parent-infant attachment = Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that the majority of babies became attached to their mothers first > in only 3% of cases the father was the first sole object of attachment > within a few months formed secondary attachments to other family members, including the father > In 75% of the infants studied an attachment was formed with the father by the age of 18 months > indicated by the fact the infant would protest when their father walked away - a sign of attachment
The role of the father = Grossman (2002) - carried out a longitudinal study looking at parents behaviour and its relationship to the quality of children’s attachments in their teens > found that the quality of attachment with the father was less important for teenagers than quality of attachment with the mother > therefore, fathers may be less important in long-term emotional development >
furthermore, the quality of fathers’ play with infants was related to children’s attachment > 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
Fathers as primary carers = evidence suggests that when fathers do take on the role of being the main caregiver they adopt behaviours more typical of mothers > Field (1978) found that 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 an infant > so it seems the father can be the more nurturing attachment figure
Evaluation of attachment figures
- There are inconsistent findings on fathers - 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 of the father as secondary attachment figures whereas others are more concerned with fathers as a primary attachment figure > The former have tended to see fathers behaving differently from mothers and having a distinct role > the latter have tended to find that fathers can take on a ‘maternal’ role > this is a problem because it means psychologists cannot easily answer the simple question; ‘what is the role of the father?’
- Grossman (2002) found that fathers as secondary attachment figures had an important and distinctive role in their children’s development, involving play and stimulation > Others studies have found that children growing up in single or same-sex parent families do not develop differently from those in two-parent families > suggests that the father’s role as a secondary attachment figure is not important
- Research fails to provide a clear answer about fathers and primary attachments > Fathers not being 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 do not feel they should act like that > on the other hand, it could be that female hormones create higher levels of nurturing and therefore women are biologically predisposed to be the primary attachment figure
Schaffer’s stages of attachment
Schaffer and Emerson developed four stages of attachment
Stage 1 - Asocial stage (First few weeks) = baby’s behaviour towards non-human objects and humans is quite similar > Babies show some preference for familiar adults in that those individuals find it easier to calm them > babies are also happier in the presence of other humans
Stage 2 - Indiscriminate attachment (2-7 months) = babies display more observable social behaviour > they show a preference for people rather than inanimate objects > recognise and prefer familiar adults > do not show separation or stranger anxiety
Stage 3 - Specific attachment (From around 7 months) = babies display separation and stranger anxiety when separated from one particular adult > Baby is said to have formed a specific attachment with the primary attachment figure > this is in most cases the person who offers the most interaction and responds to the baby’s ‘signals’ with the most skill
Stage 4 - Multiple attachments (By one year) = after babies show attachment to one particular adult, they usually extend their attachment to multiple attachments with other adults they usually spend time with > Secondary attachments form with other adults
Schaffer and Emerson’s (1964) stages of attachment study = Aimed to investigate the formation of early attachments, in particular the age at which they develop
- Study involved 60 babies - 31 male, 29 females > from Glasgow > the babies and the mothers were visited at home every month for one year and once again at 18 months > separation anxiety and stranger anxiety was measured by asking mothers questions about their children
- Findings = 50% of babies showed separation anxiety towards a particular adult between 25 and 32 weeks of age > the primary attachment figure was usually the mother & attachment tended to be to the caregiver who was most interactive and sensitive to infant signals and facial expressions (reciprocal) > by the age of 40 weeks, 80% of the babies has a specific attachment and 30% displayed multiple attachment
Evaluation of Schaffer’s stages of attachment
+ Schaffer and Emerson’s study has good external validity > they carried out their study in families own homes and most of the observations (other than stranger anxiety) was actually done by parents during ordinary activities and reported to researchers later > this means the behaviour of the babies was unlikely to be affected by the presence of observers > therefore it is highly likely that the participants behaved naturally while being observed
+ The study was carried out longitudinally > means that the same children were followed-up and observed regularly > the quicker alternative would have been to observe different children at each stage - this is called cross-sectional design > However, longitudinal studies have better internal validity because they do not have the confounding variables of individual differences between participants
- There is a problem studying the asocial stage - Schaffer and Emerson describe the first few weeks as the ‘asocial stage’ > the problem here is that babies that are young have poor coordination and are generally pretty much immobile > therefore, making it more difficult to make any judgements about them based on observations of their behaviour > it may be the babies are actually quite social but, because of flawed methods they appear to be asocial
- There is also a problem with how multiple attachment is assessed > just because a baby gets distressed when an individual leaves the room, it does not mean that the individual is a ‘true’ attachment figure > Bowlby (1969) pointed that children have playmates as well as attachment figures and may get distressed when a playmate leaves the room but this does not signify attachment > A problem for Schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachment because their observation does not leave us a way to distinguish between behaviour shown towards secondary attachment figures and shown towards playmates
Animal studies of attachment
Animal studies in psychology 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 imprinting research = Lorenz set up an experiment by dividing a clutch of goose eggs > half the eggs hatched with the mother goose in their natural environment and the other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz
Findings = the incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere > the control group followed their mother >
When the two groups were mixed, the control group continued to follow the mother and the experimental group followed Lorenz > Known as imprinting - whereby bird species (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 > dependent 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
Harlow’s research -
Harlow carried out important animal research in terms of informing our understanding of attachment > worked with rhesus monkeys - which are more similar to humans than Lorenz’s birds
The importance of contact comfort = Harlow observed that newborns kept alone in a bare cage usually died but survived if given something soft like a cloth to cuddle
Harlow (1958) tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother > he reared 16 baby monkeys with two wire model ‘mothers’
Condition one > milk was dispensed by the plain wire mother
Condition two > the milk was dispensed by a cloth-covered mother
Findings = Baby monkeys cuddled the soft object in preference to the wire one > sought comfort from the cloth one when frightened regardless of which dispensed milk > showed ‘contact comfort’ was more important to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour
Harlow found there was a critical period for this behaviour - a mother figure had to be introduced to an infant with 90 days for an attachment to form > after this time, attachment was impossible and the damage done by early deprivation became irreversible
Evaluation of animal studies of attachment
- Although some of Lorenz’s findings have influenced our understanding of human development, there is a problem with generalising from findings on birds to humans > the mammalian attachment system is quite different from that of birds > For example, mammalian mothers show more emotional attachment to young than do birds and mammals > means it is not appropriate to try and generalise any of Lorenz’s findings to humans
- Some of Lorenz’s research has been questioned by later researchers - for example, the idea that imprinting has a permanent effect on mating behaviour > Guiton et al. (1966) found that chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults but that with experience they eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens > suggests that the impact of imprinting on mating behaviour is not as permanent as Lorenz believed
+ Harlow’s research has important practical applications - For example, it has helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse and so are able to intervene to prevent it > We also understand the importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding in the wild > the usefulness of Harlow’s research increases its value
- Harlow faced severe criticism for the ethics of his research > Rhesus monkeys are similar enough to humans for us to generalise findings, which also means their suffering was human-like > Harlow himself was aware of the suffering he caused to the monkeys
- Although monkeys are similar to humans than Lorenz’s geese, they are not humans > For example, human babies develop speech-like communication - this may influence the formation of attachments > psychologists disagree on the extent to which studies of non-human primates can be generalised to humans
Explanation of attachment; Learning theory
Learning theory and attachment = Dollard and Miller (1950) proposed that caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory > their approach is sometimes called ‘cupboard love’ - empathises the importance of the caregiver as a provider of food > suggest children learn to love who feeds them
Classical conditioning = involves learning to associate two stimuli > Food serves as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) which leads to pleasure as the unconditioned response (UCR) A caregiver (e.g mother) starts as a neutral stimulus (NS) > the person providing food over time becomes associated with the ‘food’ > the NS becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS) Once conditioning has taken place, the sight of the caregiver provides a conditioned response (CR) of pleasure
Operant conditioning = involves learning to repeat behaviours, or not, depending on its consequences > if a behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, that behaviour is likely to be repeated as it has been reinforced > if a behaviour produces an unpleasant consequence it is less likely to be repeated
Operant conditioning explains why babies cry for comfort > crying leads to a response from the caregiver (e.g feeding) > as long as the caregiver provides the comfort response, crying is reinforced because it produces a pleasurable consequence
The reinforcement is a two-way process > At the same time as the baby is reinforced for crying, the caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops - escaping something unpleasant is reinforcing > This interplay of positive/negative reinforcement strengthens this attachment
Attachment as a secondary drive = As well as conditioning, learning theory draws on the concept of drive reduction > hunger is a primary drive, an innate biological motivator
Attachment is a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive > Sears et al. (1957) suggested that as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them
Evaluation of the learning theory to attachment
- Animal studies provide evidence against food as the basis of attachment > For example, Lorenz’s geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them > As well as this, Harlow’s monkeys attached to a soft surrogate in preference to a wire one that dispensed milk > In both these animal studies, it is clear that attachment does not develop as a result of feeding > The same must be true for humans as after all, learning theorists believe that non-human animals and humans are equivalent
- Human research also shows that feeding is not an important factor - For example, in Schaffer and Emerson’s study many of the babies developed a primary attachment to their biological mother even though other careers did most of the feeding > These findings are a problem for learning theory as they show that feeding is not the key element to attachment and so there is no conditioned stimulus or primary drive involved > this evidence suggests that other factors are more important than food in the formation of attachment
- Learning theory ignores other factors linked with attachment - Research shows that quality of attachment is associated with developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony > In addition, studies have shown that the best attachments are with sensitive carers who pick up infant signals and respond appropriately > It is very hard to reconcile these findings with the idea that attachment develops primarily through feeding
+ Some elements of conditioning could still be involved - The learning theory may not be a good explanation for infant caregiver attachment > But, we do believe that many aspects of human development are affected by conditioning > the problem with the learning theory as an explanation of attachment is mostly the idea that feeding provides the unconditioned stimulus, reinforcement or primary drive > it is still credible that association between primary caregiver and the provision of comfort and social interaction is part of what builds the attachment
Explanations of attachment; Bowlby’s theory
Bowlby’s monotrophic theory = Bowlby rejected learning theory as an explanation for attachment > proposed an evolutionary explanation: that attachment is an innate system that gives a survival advantage > Imprinting and attachment evolved because they ensure young animals stay close to their caregivers and this protects them from hazards
Monotrophy = Bowlby’s theory is described as monotrophic because of the empathise on the child’s attachment to one caregiver > this attachment is different from others and is more important
Bowlby believed that the more time a baby spent with this primary attachment figure/mother figure the better > there are two main reasons
1. Law of continuity - the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of attachment
2. Law of accumulated separation - the effects of every separation from the mother add up
Social releasers = Bowlby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate ‘cute’ behaviours (e.g smiling) that encourage attention from adults > purpose of these social releasers is to activate the adult attachment system > Bowlby recognised that attachment is a reciprocal process
Critical period = Bowlby proposed that there is a critical period of about two years when the infant attachment system is active > In fact, he viewed this as more of a sensitive period > A child is maximally sensitive up to the age of two years > if an attachment is not formed in this time, he or she will find it much harder to form one later
Internal working model = Bowlby argued that the child forms a mental representation of the relationship with their primary attachment figure > the internal working model serves as a ‘template’ for what relationships are like
A child whose first experience is a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to form an expectation that all relationships are loving and reliable > However, a child whose first relationship involves poor treatment may expect such treatment from others
The internal working model may also affect the child’s later ability to be a parent themselves
Evaluation of Bowlby’s theory
+ There is clear evidence to support the existence and value of social releasers - Brazelton et al. (1975) instructed primary attachment figures to ignore their babies’ social releasers > the babies initially showed some distress, but eventually curled up and lay motionless > This supports Bowlby’s ideas about the significance of infant social behaviour eliciting caregiving from adults and the role of social releasers
+ There is also support for the idea of an internal working model > it is testable because it predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed on from one generation to the next > Bailey et al. (2007) assessed 99 mothers with one-year-old babies on the quality of their attachments > it was found that mothers who reported poor attachment to their own parents were much more likely to have children classified with poor attachment > This supports Bowlby’s idea of an internal working model of attachment as it is being passed through families.
- Evidence for montrophy is mixed - Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that most babies did not attach to one person at first, but a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time > This contradicts Bowlby’s assertion that babies form one attachment to a primary caregiver and that this attachment is unique > attachments to mothers (not fathers) better predicts later behaviour, but this may be because mother is the primary attachment, not the different attachment quality
- Bowlby may have oversimplified the role of attachment > alternative explanation is that a child’s temperament is important in the development of social behaviour > Temperament researchers suggest that some babies are more anxious and some more sociable than others as as result of their genetic make-up > temperamental differences rather than quality of attachment can explain later social behaviour
Ainsworth’s strange situation
Developed by Mary Ainsworth > aim was to be able to observe key attachment behaviours by assessing the quality of a child’s attachment to a caregiver
Procedure = strange situation is a controlled observation procedure designed to measure the security of the attachment a child plays towards a caregiver > takes place in a room with controlled conditions with a two-way mirror through which psychologists can observe the infant’s behaviour
The behaviours used to judge attachment included:
- Proximity seeking = an infant with a good attachment will stay fairly close to the caregiver
- Exploration and secure-base behaviour = good attachment enables a child to feel confident to explore, using their caregiver as a secure base
- Stranger anxiety = one of the signs of becoming closely attached is a display of anxiety when a stranger approaches
- Separation anxiety = another sign of becoming attached is to protest at separation from the caregiver
- Response to reunion = with the caregiver after separation for a short period of time under controlled conditions
The procedure has seven episodes, each of which last three minutes -
Beginning; Child and caregiver enter an unfamiliar playroom
1. The child is encouraged to explore - Tests exploration and secure-base
2. A stranger comes in and tries to interact with the child - Tests stranger anxiety
3. The caregiver leaves the child and stranger together -
Tests separation and stranger anxiety
4. The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves - Tests reunion behaviour and exploration secure-base
5. The caregiver leaves the child alone - Tests separation anxiety
6. The stranger returns - Tests stranger anxiety
7. The caregiver returns and is reunited with the child - Tests reunion behaviour
Ainsworth et al. (1978) - found that there were distinctive patterns in the way that infants behaved > she identified three main types of attachment -
- Secure attachment (Type B) = these children explore happily but go back to the caregiver (proximity seeking and secure base behaviour) > usually show moderate separation distress and moderate stranger anxiety > Requires and accepts comfort from the caregiver
- Insecure-avoidant attachment (Type A) = Child explores freely but does not seek proximity (no secure base) > shows little/no separation and stranger anxiety > Does not require comfort at the reunion stage
- Insecure-resistant attachment (Type C) = Child explores less and seeks greater proximity > shows considerable stranger anxiety and separation anxiety > resists comfort when reunited with caregiver
Evaluation of Ainsworth’s strange situation
+ There is predictive validity of attachment types in the Strange Situation - Attachment types predict later development > For example, babies assessed as secure typically have greater success at school and more lasting romantic relationships and friendships in adulthood > Insecure-resistant attachment is associated with the worst outcomes such as bullying later in childhood and adult mental health problems > This is evidence for the validity of the concept because it can explain future outcomes
+ Strange situation shows very good inter-rater reliability - Different observers watching the same children generally agree on attachment type > this may be because the strange situation takes place under controlled conditions and because the behavioural categories are easy to observe > so we can be confident that the attachment type of an infant identified in the strange situation does not just depend on who is observing them
- Strange situation may be a culture-bound test - The test might not have the same meaning in countries outside Western Europe and the USA > This is for two reasons = cultural differences in childhood experiences are likely to mean that children respond differently to the strange situation and caregivers from different cultures behave differently in the strange situation > For example, Takahashi (1990) notes that japanese mothers are rarely separated from infants, thus the infants show high levels of separation anxiety
- Temperament may be a confounding variable > Ainsworth assumed that the main influence on separation and stranger anxiety was the quality of attachment > But Kagan (1982) suggests that temperament is a more important influence on behaviour in the strange situation > This challenges the validity of the Strange Situation because its intention is to measure the quality of attachment, not the temperament of the child
- There may be other attachment types - Ainsworth identified three attachment types: insecure-avoidant, secure and insecure resistant > Main and Solomon (1986) pointed out that some children display atypical attachment that does not fit any of the types proposed by Ainsworth > This is a disorganised attachment - a mix of avoidant and resistant behaviours > This challenges Ainsworth initial notion of attachment types and could question whether the Strange Situation is a useful method to identify these types
Cultural variations in attachment
‘Culture’ refers to the norms and values that exist within any group of people
Cultural variations = 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 Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1998) = conducted a study to look at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries > also, looked at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture
Procedure = Found 32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation had been used > these were conducted in 8 countries; 15 in the USA > included a total of 1,990 children
The data were meta-analysed, results being combined and weighted for the sample size
Findings = Secure attachment was the most common classification in all countries, but ranged from 50% in China to 75% in Britain > Insecure-resistant was overall the least common type although it ranged from 3% in Britain to around 30% in Israel > Insecure-avoidant attachments were observed mostly in Germany and least in in Japan > Variations between results of studies within the same country were actually 150% greater than those between countries
An italian study - Simonella 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 > researchers assessed 76 12-month olds using the Strange Situation > found 50% were secure, with 36% insecure-avoidant > this is a lower rate of secure attachment than has been found in many studies > researchers suggest this is because increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional childcare > these findings suggest that cultural changes can make a dramatic difference to pattern of secure and insecure attachment
Conclusions = Secure attachment seems to be the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal and this type is a universal norm. However, the research also clearly shows that cultural practises have an influence on attachment type
