Attachment Flashcards
Reciprocity
A description of how 2 people interact. Mother-infant interaction is reciprocal in that both infant and mother respond to each others signals and each elicits a response from the other
Interactional synchrony
Mother and infant reflect both the actions and emotions of other and do this in a co-ordinated (synchronised) way.
Types of observation:
Naturalistic observation
This technique involves observing the spontaneous behaviour of participants in natural surroundings.
The researcher simply records what they see in whatever way they can.
Types of observation:
Controlled observation
- The researcher plans, observes and records the behaviour of participants in a controlled environment.
- Participants have usually given their consent and there is a risk of participant reactivity as they know they are being observed. .
Types of observation:
Participant observation
-The researcher is involved in the observation under investigation.
Types of observation:
Non-participant observation
-The researcher is not involved in the observation under investigation and observes and records the behaviour of others from a distance.
What is Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
Bowlby’s theory (1969) is an evolutionary theory. He proposed infants form an attachment to a caregiver because attachment is adaptive (aids survival). It states that attachments are innate, i.e you are born with it.
The acronym, ASCMI (like ‘ask me’), summarises the theory.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory:
A= Adaptive
A = Adaptive – attachments are an advantage, or beneficial to survival as it ensures a child is kept safe, warm and fed
Bowlby’s monotropic theory:
S = Social releasers
S = Social releasers – e.g. a cute face on a baby.
These unlock the innate tendency for adults to care for a child because they activate the mammalian attachment system.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory:
C = Critical period
C = Critical period – This is the time in which an attachment can form i.e. up to 2.5 to 3 years old.
Bowlby suggested that if an attachment is not formed in this time, it never will. If an attachment does not form, you will be socially, emotionally, intellectually and physically stunted.
Bowlby demonstrated this in his 44 juvenile thieves study, where maternal deprivation was associated with affectionless psychopathy and mental retardation.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory:
M = Monotropy
M = Monotropy – means ‘one carer’.
Bowlby suggested that you can only form one special intense attachment (this is typically but not always with the mother).
This attachment is unique, stronger and different to others.
Maternal deprivation, which is characterised by a lack of a mother figure during the critical period for attachment formation, results in emotional and intellectual developmental deficits i.e. affection less psychopathy and mental retardation.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory:
I = Internal working model
I = Internal working model – This is an area in the brain, a mental schema for relationships where information that allows you to know how to behave around people is stored.
Internal working models are our perception of the attachment we have with our primary attachment figure.
Therefore, this explains similarities in attachment patterns across families.
Those who have a dysfunctional internal working model will seek out dysfunctional relationships and behave dysfunctionally within them.
AO3: Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment
Monotropy is an example of socially sensitive research.
Despite Bowlby not specifying that the primary attachment figure must be the mother, it often is (in 65% of cases).
Therefore, this puts pressure on working mothers to delay their return to work in an effort to ensure that their child develops a secure attachment.
Any developmental abnormalities in terms of attachment are therefore blamed on the mother by default.
This suggests that the idea of monotropy may stigmatise ‘poor mothers’ and pressure them to take responsibility.
Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation
This is the theory that an attachment is essential for healthy psychological and emotional development. It states that there will be many negative consequences of maternal deprivation (being deprived/separated from a mother-like figure), such as:
● An inability to form attachments in the future (see the Internal Working Model)
● Affectionless psychopathy (being unable to feel remorse)
● Delinquency (behavioural problems in the child’s teenage years)
● Problems with cognitive (brain) development
Type of attachment:
Secure
Using this procedure, Ainsworth was able to identify 3 types of attachments:
● Secure = this was the most popular attachment type (with both types of insecure attachments being equally as common).
This was found when the infant showed some separation anxiety when the parent/caregiver leaves the room but can be easily soothed when the parent/caregiver returns.
A securely attached infant is also able to play independently but used their parent/caregiver as a safe base to explore a new environment.
This usually accounts for 65% of children.
Type of attachment:
Insecure resistant
● Insecure resistant = this is when the infant becomes very distressed and tries to follow them when the parent/caregiver leaves, but when they return, the infant repeatedly switches from seeking and rejecting social interaction and intimacy with them.
They are also less inclined to explore new environments.
This usually accounts for 3% of children, and so is the least common attachment type.
Type of attachment:
Insecure avoidant
● Insecure avoidant = this is when the infant shows no separation anxiety when their carer leaves the room and shows no stranger anxiety when a stranger enters the room.
They may show anger and frustration towards their carer and actively avoid social interaction and intimacy with them.
They are able to explore and play independently easily, no matter who is present.
This accounts for around 20% of children.
Cultural Variations in Attachment - Van Izjendoorn
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) wanted to investigate if attachment styles (secure and insecure) are universal (the same) across cultures, or culturally specific (vary considerably from place to place, due to traditions, the social environment, or beliefs about children).
They did not collect the data for their study, instead they analysed data from other studies using a method called meta analysis. Data from 32 studies in 8 different countries was analyzed.
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg found that secure attachment was the majority of infants (70%).
The lowest percentage of secure attachments was shown in China, and the highest in Great Britain.
It was also found that Western countries that support independence such as Germany had high levels of insecure avoidant.
Whereas Eastern countries that are more culturally close, such as Japan, had quite high levels of insecure resistant. The exception to the pattern was China which an equal number of avoidant and resistant infants.
Institutionalisation
Institutionalisation in the context of attachment refers to the effects of growing up in an orphanage or children’s home.
Children who are raised in these institutions often suffer from a lack of emotional care, which means that children are unable to form attachments.
Disinhibited attachment
Disinhibited attachment is where children don’t discriminate between people they choose as attachment figures.
The child doesn’t seem to prefer his or her parents over other people, even strangers.
The child seeks comfort and attention from virtually anyone, without distinction.
They will treat strangers with overfriendliness and may be attention seeking.
Romanian orphans study
Rutter’s Study
Procedure: Rutter (1998) studied Romanian orphans who had been placed in orphanages, aged 1-2 weeks old, with minimal adult contact. This was a Longitudinal study and natural experiment, using a group of around 100 Romanian orphans and assessed at ages 4, 6 and 11, then re-assesed 21 years later.
58 babies were adopted before 6 months old and 59 between the ages of 6-24 months old. 48 babies were adopted late between 2-4 years old. These were the 3 conditions Rutter used in his study.
Findings: Those who were adopted by British families before 6 months old showed ‘normal’ emotional development compared with UK children adopted at the same ag
What is an attachment?
An attachment can be defined as a close two way emotional bond between 2 individuals in which each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security.
Strength of caregiver interactions:
Controlled observations capture fine detail
Observations of mother-infant interactions are generally well controlled procedures, with both mother and infant being filmed, often from multiple angles.
This ensures that very fine details of behaviour can be recorded and later analysed.
Furthermore, babies don’t know or are that they are being observed so their behaviour does not change in response to controlled observation - which is generally a problem for observational research.
This is a strength of this line of research because it means the research has high internal validity.
Limitation of caregiver interactions:
Its hard to know what is happening when observing infants
Many studies involving observation of interactions between mothers and infants have shown the same patterns of interaction (Gratier 2003).
However, what is being observed is merely hand movements or changes in expression. It is extremely difficult to be certain, based on these observations, what is taking place from the infants perspective.
This is a limitation of studies observing mother- infant interactions because it means that we cannot really know for certain that behaviours seen in mother-infant interaction have a special meaning
The role of the father
Grossman (2002) carried out a longitudinal study looking at both parents behaviour and its relationship to the quality of children’s attachment into their teens.
Quality of infant attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to children’s attachments in adolescence, suggesting that father attachment was less important.
However, the quality of fathers play with the infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachment. This suggests that fathers have a different role of in attachment - one that is to do with play and simulation, and less to do with nurturing.
Fathers as primary carers
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.
Tiffany Field (1978) filmed 4 month old babies in face to face interaction with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiver fathers.
Primary caregiver fathers, like mothers spent more time smiling, imitating and holding infants than the secondary caregiver fathers
This behaviour appears to be important in building an attachment with the infant. So it seems that fathers can be the more nurturing attachment figure. The key to the attachment relationship is the level of responsiveness, not the gender of the parent
Strength of the Research into Multiple Attachments and the Role of the Father (AO3, Evaluation):
(1) POINT: The role of fathers as secondary attachment figures can be explained through biological processes and gender stereotyping.
EXAMPLE/EVIDENCE: For example, the fact that fathers tend not to become the primary attachment figure could simply be down to the result of traditional gender roles, in which women are expected to be more caring and nurturing than men. On the other hand, it could be that females hormones (oestrogen) create higher levels of nurturing and therefore women are biologically pre-disposed to be the primary attachment figure.
EVALUATION: This is a strength as it confirms that such difference between mothers and fathers in the role of rearing children can be down to an individual’s nature but also their experiences of nurture.
Limitation of the Research into Multiple Attachments and the Role of the Father (AO3, Evaluation):
Inconsistent findings in fathers
POINT: A weakness of research into attachment figures is that there are inconsistent findings as to the role of the father in attachments.
EVIDENCE/EXAMPLE: For example, research into the role of the father in attachment is confusing because different researchers are interested in different research questions. Some researchers are interested in understanding the role fathers have as secondary attachment figures, whereas others are more concerned with the father’s role 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.
EVALUATION: This is a problem because it means psychologists cannot easily answer the questions ‘what is the role of the father?’ The findings from research being inconsistent means that firm conclusions cannot be drawn.
Limitation of the Research into Multiple Attachments and the Role of the Father (AO3, Evaluation):
Research has left unanswered questions
POINT: A further criticism is that research has left unanswered questions such as if fathers have a distinct role then why aren’t children without fathers different
EVIDENCE/EXAMPLE: For example, as mentioned previously, Grossman’s study found that fathers as a secondary attachment figure have an important role in their children’s upbringing. 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.
EVALUATION: This is a weakness because it suggests that the father’s role as a secondary attachment figure is not important.
Key Research Study: Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
Aim
Aim: An investigation into the development of infant attachments.
Key Research Study: Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
Procedure:
Longitudinal study of 60 babies drawn from a predominantly working class are of Glasgow.
At the start of the investigation, infants ranged from 5 to 23 weeks of age.
Infants were studied until the age of 1 year and mothers were visited every four weeks.
At each visit, the mother reported their infants response to separation in seven everyday situations (e.g. being left alone in a room, left with other people)
Mother was asked to describe the intensity of any protest (e.g. a full blown cry or simple whimper) which was then rated on a four point scale.
Finally, the mother was asked to say whom the protest was directed.
Stranger anxiety was also measured by assessing the infant’s response to the interviewer at each visit.
Key Research Study: Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
Findings:
Between 25 and 32 weeks of age, about 50% of babies showed signs of separation anxiety towards a particular adult (usually the mother which signified a specific attachment).
Attachment tended to be to the caregiver who was most interactive and sensitive to infant signals and facial expressions (reciprocity). This was not necessarily the person the infant spent most time with.
By the age of 40 weeks 80% of the babies had a specific attachment and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments.
Key Research Study: Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
Conclusions:
The conclusion of the study was that attachment develops in stages.
These findings led Schaffer and Emerson to develop the Stages of Attachment.
(1) Asocial Stage
First few weeks
·Baby is recognising and forming bonds with its carers
·Baby’s behaviour towards humans and non-human objects is similar.
·Show some preference for familiar adults in that those individuals find it easier to calm them.
·Babies are also happy when they are in the presence of other humans.
Indiscriminate Stage
2-7 months
Display more observable social behaviour.
·Show a preference for people rather than inanimate objects and recognise and prefer familiar adults.
·Usually accept cuddles and comfort from any adult
·Don’t show separation or stranger anxiety
·Indiscriminate because it is not different towards any one person.
Specific Attachments
7 months onwards
·Baby begins to show separation anxiety (protests when primary caregiver leaves them)
·Fear of strangers develop.
·Began to form specific attachments (not necessarily the individual who spends the most time with the infant but the one who interacts with the infant the most).
Multiple Attachments
by 1 year
·Multiple attachments follow soon after the first attachment is made.
·Baby shows attachment behaviours towards several different people – secondary attachments (e.g. siblings, grandparents, child-minders etc…)
Evaluation of the Research into the Stages of Attachment
Problem studying the asocial stage
A problem with Schaffer and Emerson’s theory of the stages of attachment is that the asocial stage is difficult to study.
For example, young babies in this stage have poor co-ordination and are generally pretty much immobile.
It is therefore very difficult to make any judgements about the infants based on observations of their behaviour (there isn’t much observable behaviour)
This is a weakness because the evidence obtained from the observations cannot be relied upon and therefore it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions.
Evaluation of the Research into the Stages of Attachment
Measuring multiple attachment
Another weakness is that there are difficulties in how multiple attachments is assessed.
For example, just because a baby gets distressed when an individual leaves the room it does not necessarily mean that the individual is a ‘true’ attachment figure. Bowlby (1969) pointed out that children have playmates as well as attachment figures and may get distressed when a playmate leaves.
This is a problem for Schaffer and Emerson’s stages because their observation does not leave us a way to distinguish between behaviour shown towards secondary attachment figures and shown towards playmates.
Evaluation of the Research into the Stages of Attachment
Conflicting evidence on multiple attachment
A further weakness is that there is conflicting evidence from different cultures on multiple attachments.
For example, there is no doubt that children become capable of multiple attachments however; it is not clear at what age this happens.
Some research seems to indicate that most babies form attachments to a single main carer before they become capable of developing multiple attachments.
Other Psychologists, in particular those who work in those cultural context were multiple care givers are the norm, believe babies form multiple attachments from the outset.
This is a problem because the presence of cross-cultural differences in child-rearing means that it is difficult to produce a theory that is applicable to all cultures (collectivist and individualist), therefore Schaffer and Emerson’s theory can be criticised as being ethnocentric.
Animal Studies of Attachment: Lorenz, Imprinting and the Greylag Geese
Aim:
To investigate the mechanisms of imprinting where the youngsters follow and form an attachment to the first large, moving object that they meet.
Animal Studies of Attachment: Lorenz, Imprinting and the Greylag Geese
Procedure:
Lorenz (1935) split a large clutch of greylag goose eggs into two batches.
One batch hatch naturally with the mother, the other batch hatched in an incubator with Lorenz making sure that he was the first moving object the goslings encountered.
The gosling’s behaviour was recorded.
Lorenz marked the goslings so that he knew whether they had hatched naturally or whether they had hatched in the incubator.
He placed all the goslings under and upturned box. The box was then removed and the gosling’s behaviour was recorded.
Animal Studies of Attachment: Lorenz, Imprinting and the Greylag Geese
Findings:
After birth, the naturally hatched baby goslings followed their mother about whilst the incubator hatched goslings followed Lorenz around.
When released from the upturned box, the naturally hatched goslings went straight to their mother whereas the incubator hatched goslings went straight to Lorenz (showing no bond to their natural mother).
These bonds proved to be irreversible (the naturally hatched goslings would only follow their mother; the incubator hatched goslings would only follow Lorenz).
Lorenz noticed how the process of imprinting occurred only a short period of time after birth (between 4 and 25 hours).
Animal Studies of Attachment: Lorenz, Imprinting and the Greylag Geese
Conclusion:
Imprinting is a form of attachment, exhibited mainly by nidifugous birds (ones who have to leave the nest early), whereby close contact is kept with the first large moving object encountered.
Strength of Lorenz’s Animal Study (AO3):
A strength of Lorenz’s study is that its findings have been highly influential within the field of developmental psychology.
For example, the fact that imprinting is seen to be irreversible (as suggested in Lorenz’s study) suggests that attachment formation is under biological control and that attachment formation happens within a specific time frame.
This is a strength because it lead developmental psychologists (such as Bowlby) to develop well recognised theories of attachment suggesting the attachment formation takes place during a critical period and is a biological process. Such theories have been highly influential in the way child care is administered today.
Limitation of Lorenz’s Animal Study (AO3):
Extrapolation.
A weakness of Lorenz’s study is that it can be criticised for extrapolation.
Lorenz conducted his study on imprinting on animals – the greylag geese.
This is a weakness because humans and animals (in this case, greylag geese) are physiologically different.
The way a human infant develops an attachment with their primary caregiver could be very different to the way a greylag geese forms an attachment with their primary caregiver, therefore the findings cannot be generalised.
Limitation of Lorenz’s Animal Study (AO3):
Researchers have questioned Lorenz’s conclusions.
A further weakness of Lorenz’s findings is that later researchers have questioned Lorenz’s conclusions.
For example, Guiton et al (1966) found that chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults however, with experience, they eventually learned to prefer other chickens.
This is a weakness because this suggests that the impact of imprinting on mating behaviour is not as permanent as Lorenz believed.
Animal Studies of Attachment: Harlow
Aim:
To test Learning theory by comparing attachment behaviour in baby monkeys given a wire surrogate mother producing milk with those given a soft towelling mother producing no milk.
Animal Studies of Attachment: Harlow
Procedure:
Two types of surrogate mother were constructed – a harsh wire mother and a soft towelling mother. 16 baby monkeys were used, 4 in each condition.
A cage containing a wire mother producing milk and a towelling mother producing no milk.
A cage containing a wire mother producing no milk and a towelling mother producing milk.
A cage containing a wire mother producing milk
A cage containing a towelling mother producing milk.
The amount of time spent with each mother was recorded, as well as feeding time was recorded. The monkeys were also frightened with loud noises to test for mother preference during times of stress.
Animal Studies of Attachment: Harlow
Findings:
Monkeys preferred contact with the towelling mother when given a choice of surrogate mother (regardless of whether she produced milk).
The monkeys even stretched across to the wire monkey to feed whilst still clinging to the towelling mother (providing comfort).
Monkeys with only the wire surrogate suffered from diarrhoea (a sign of stress).
When frightened by a loud noise monkeys clung to the towelling mother (when this was available).
In the larger cage conditions, monkeys with the towelling mothers explored more and visited their surrogate mother more.
Animal Studies of Attachment: Harlow
Conclusion:
Rhesus monkeys have an innate, unlearned need for contact comfort, suggesting that attachment concerns emotional security more than food.
Contact comfort is associated with lower levels of stress and a willingness to explore, indicating emotional security.
Strengths of Harlow’s Animal Study (AO3):
High internal validity
A strength of Harlow’s study is that it was conducted in a controlled, laboratory setting.
Harlow was able to control potential extraneous variables such as the monkeys being taken away from their mothers straight after birth, the baby monkeys not being exposed to any love or attention from their biological mothers.
This is a strength because it means that Harlow was measuring what he intended to measure (i.e. factors that can affect the formation of attachment) and therefore, the study can be seen to have high internal validity allowing a cause and effect relationship to be established.
Limitation of Harlow’s Animal Study (AO3):
Low ecological validity
A weakness of Harlow’s study is that it was conducted in a controlled, artificial laboratory setting.
For example, the highly controlled laboratory setting that Harlow used is not reflective of the real life situations and may cause the monkeys to behave in an artificial manner.
This is a weakness because it means that Harlow wasn’t necessarily measuring the real-life attachment formation and therefore the study can be criticised for lacking ecological validity.
Limitation of Harlow’s Animal Study (AO3):
Ethical issues
Another weakness of Harlow’s study is that it can be seen to be unethical.
For example, the monkeys in Harlow’s study showed great distress when they were removed from their biological mothers.
In addition, after the study, when the monkeys were placed in situation with other rhesus monkeys (who hadn’t been involved in Harlow’s original research), the rhesus monkeys from the study showed great distress in social situations and were unable to communicate with other monkeys.
In addition, when the monkeys from the study had their own children many were said to neglect their offspring and (in some extreme circumstances) killed their offspring.
This is a weakness because Harlow’s study can be seen to be in breach of the BPS guidelines (it fails to protect the monkeys from harm).
Furthermore, this study doesn’t tell us anything about the formation of human attachments (monkeys and humans are physiologically different).
Therefore Psychologists would argue that the lack of generalizability from this research makes Harlow’s study even more unethical.
Learning Theory of Attachment’ – The Behavioural Explanation: Miller and Dollard (1950)
Learning theory suggests that all infants are born as ‘blank slates’ and that ALL behaviour is ‘learned’ rather than innate.
Can be learned by operant and classical conditioning
Attachment can be socially learned where the infant observes the behaviour of the caregiver and
imitates
This theory is often referred to as a ‘cupboard love theory’ because it suggests that the infant becomes attached to a caregiver because it ‘learns’ that the caregiver will meet their physiological (nutritional) needs (i.e. becomes attached to the care giver who provides the infant with food).
Classical conditioning
Classical conditioning suggests that a child learns to associate their caregiver with their needs being met (feeding them) and so an attachment is formed.
The stimulus of food produces pleasure (an unconditioned stimulus which produces an unconditioned response).
The person providing the food (usually the mother) becomes associated with this pleasure and therefore becomes a conditioned stimulus.
Over time, as an association is formed, the food-giver becomes a source of pleasure regardless of whether they provide food or not.
Operant conditioning
Operant conditioning is a type of learning in which a new voluntary behaviour is associated with a consequence - reinforcement makes the behaviour more likely to occur, while punishment makes it less likely to occur.
Strength of the Learning Theory:
Provides adequate explanations
Learning theory can provide an adequate explanation of how attachments form.
For example, we do seem to learn in a number of ways through association in real-life (e.g. we associate certain situations with danger when we develop phobias even if that association is irrational).
The case of Little Albert shows that classical conditioning is the process by which we learn a variety of behaviours. Little Albert’s case shows that when you combine a loud noise (an unconditioned stimulus) with a neutral stimulus (a rat) after much repetition, this creates a conditioned response (fear of the rat).
This is positive because it suggests learning theory may at least play a part in attachment formation.
Limitation of the Learning Theory:
Counter evidence from animal research - Harlow
Evidence against learning theory comes from Harlow’s research (1959)
He found that when newborn Rhesus monkeys were separated from their mother after birth and placed in a cage with 2 wire ‘mothers’ where one ‘mother’ consisted of exposed wire and a feeding bottle and the other ‘mother’ was wrapped in a soft cloth but offered no food, the monkey’s spent most of their time with the soft cloth ‘mother’ rather than the mother offering food.
This is a weakness because it suggests ‘cupboard love’ is unlikely to explain attachment as the monkeys should have attached to the mother with food but often will become attached to the caregiver offering comfort.
Limitation of the Learning Theory:
Counter evidence from animal research - Lorenz
Further evidence against learning theory comes from Lorenz’s theory of ‘imprinting’,
Evidence to support this theory comes from Lorenz’s (1952) research using newly hatched Greylag geese who, after seeing Lorenz shortly after hatching (their first image), they followed him everywhere as he became their ‘imprinted’ parent.
This means that newborns ‘imprint’ an image of the first moving object they see (usually their parents) within hours of being born which allows them to stick closely to this important source of protection and food.
This criticises learning theory as it suggests that attachment is innate as the infants were far too young to have learned anything at this stage.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
An evolutionary theory
Human babies have an innate tendency to establish a reciprocal bond with their caregiver, to aid survival
Babies possess innate characteristics that encourages the caregiver to look after them – social
releasers
Attachment takes place during a critical period or not at all, before 3 years of age
Monotropy – infants form an attachment to one primary caregiver, usually the biological mother
As a result of the relationship, the infant develops an internal working model, a schema about
itself and relationships (the way you are treated by the special person affects how you see
yourself)
This schema provides a template for later relationships – continuity hypothesis
Strength of Bowlby’s monotropic theory:
Support from Lorenz’s imprinting study
Lorenz’s imprinting study can be used as evidence to support Bowlby’s theory.
Lorenz suggested that new-borns ‘imprint’ an image of the first moving object they see (usually their parents) within hours of being born which allows them to stick closely to this important source of protection and food.
After carrying out his experiment on newly hatched Greylag geese, Lorenz found that when shortly after hatching he was the first image the geese saw they followed him everywhere as he became their ‘imprinted’ parent.
This is positive as Lorenz’s study supports Bowlby’s theory providing evidence that attachment is innate.
Strength of Bowlby’s monotropic theory:
Support for internal working model
The idea of internal working models is testable because it predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed on from one generation to the next.
Bailey et al (2007) tested this idea. They assessed 99 mothers with one year old babies on the quality if their attachment to their own mothers using a standard interview procedure.
The researcher 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 a spoor according to the observations.
This supports the idea that, as Bowlby said, an internal working model of attachment was passed through families. this increases the reliability of the theory
Limitation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory:
Socially sensitive idea
The Evolutionary Explanation, in particular the monotropy can be considered to be a socially sensitive idea.
It has led mothers to stay at home, and still has a negative impact on mothers today. There is still the idea amongst some that mothers should not work.
Feminists like Erica Burman (1994) have pointed out that this places a terrible burden of responsibility on mothers, setting them up to take the blame for anything that goes wrong in the rest of their child’s life. It also pushes mothers into certain lifestyle choices like making the decision not to return to work when a child is born.
This is a limitation because the theory can be seen to be unethical if it’s key assumptions are seen to negatively discriminate against women/mothers.
It also has negative economical implications as it has lead to less mothers returning to work after having a child, leading to a lower income, on a national level. It also has negative social implications, as it encourages society to believe the traditional view that women should stay at home and look after children whilst men work. This has resulted in very few mothers being promoted to senior positions.
Limitation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory:
Counter evidence
However, Howes et al (1994) provide evidence against Bowlby’s theory
Evidence to dispute this comes from Howes et al (1994) who found that parent-child relationships were not necessarily the same as child-peer relationships.
This means that Bowlby argued that early attachment forms the template (internal working model) for future relationships which leads us to expect children to form similar relationships with others.
This is problematic because it suggests children may possess more than one ‘template’ which can’t be accounted for by Bowlby’s theory.
What idea did Ainsworth provide?
Ainsworth provided the idea that an attachment figure acts as a ‘secure base’ from which an infant can explore the world/their environment and pointed out the importance of maternal sensitivity in the development of mother-infant attachment patterns.
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation.’
Aim:
This study aimed to investigate the individual differences in attachment, (secure, insecure attachments).
In addition, Ainsworth et al wanted to see how infants would react under conditions of mild stress (created by being separated from primary caregiver and the presence of a stranger in the room).
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation.’
Research Method:
Laboratory using structured observations.
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation.’
Participants:
Infants aged between 12-18 month
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation.’
Procedure
The experiment is set up in a small room with one way glass so the behaviour of the child can be observed. Children were aged between 12 and 18 months. Each phase of the procedure lasts 3 minutes and a session progresses as follows:
· Parent (or caregiver) enters room with child, child explores for 3 minutes
· A Stranger enters and joins the parent and infant, talks to mother
·Parent leaves the infant with the stranger
·Parent returns and the stranger leaves. Parent settles the infant.
·Parent leaves again
·Stranger returns
· Parent returns and stranger leave
Limitation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory:
Temperament may be as important as attachment
A limitation of Bowlby’s theory is that there are other factors, such as temperament that may have more important role in the development of a child’s social behaviour.
For example, temperament researchers suggest that some babies are more anxious than others and some are more sociable than others as a result of their genetic makeup (Kagan 1982). These temperamental differences explain later social behaviour rather than attachment experiences.
This is therefore a limitation of Bowlby’s theory as it could be seen as over emphasising the importance of a child’s early experiences and the quality of their attachment, and undermining the role of other factors such as temperament, in the development of a child’s social behaviour.
Secure attachment
These children explore happily but regularly go ack to the caregiver (proximity seeking and secure base behaviour)
They usually show moderate separation and stranger anxiety
Securely attached children require and accept comfort from the caregiver in the reunion stage.
About 60-75% of British toddlers are classified as secure
This type of attachment occurs because the mother meets the emotional needs of the infant.
Insecure- avoidant attachment
These children explore freely but do not seek proximity or show secure base behaviour
They show little or no reaction when their caregiver leave and they make little effort to make contact when the caregiver returns
They also show little stranger anxiety
They do not require comfort at the reunion stage
About 20-25% of British toddlers are classifieds as insecure- avoidant
This type of attachment occurs because the mother ignores the emotional needs of the infant.
Insecure Resistant / Ambivalent
These children seek greater proximity than others and so explore less
They show huge stranger and separation anxiety but they resist comfort when reunited with their carer
Around 3% of British toddlers are classified as insecure resistant.
This type of attachment occurs because the mother sometime meets the needs of the infant and sometimes ignores their emotional needs, i.e. the mother’s behaviour is inconsistent.
Limitation of strange situation:
Cultural bias: ethnocentric
The Strange Situation was created and tested in the USA, which means that it may be culturally biased (ethnocentric), as it will reflect the norms and values of American culture.
This is a problem as it assumes that attachment behaviour has the same meaning in all cultures, when in fact cultural perception and understanding of behaviour differ greatly.
For example, the belief that attachment is related to anxiety on separation. This may not be the case in other cultures, e.g. Japan. Takakshi (1990) has noted tat the test does not work in Japan because Japanese mothers are so rarely separated from their babies, that there are obviously very high separation anxiety levels.
This is a limitation of the strange situation as the pattern of attachment from this investigation may not be representative of other cultures. this would make it difficult to generalise the findings to infants and mothers from other cultures, reducing the reliability of the study.
Strength of strange situation:
High inter rater reliability
A strength of the strange situation is that it shows high inter-rater reliability
This may be because the strange situation takes place under controlled conditions and because the behavioural categories are easy to observe.
In a recent study, Bick et al (2012) looked at inter-rater reliability in a team of trained strange situation observer’s and found agreement for attachment type for 94% of tested babies
This is a strength as it means 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
Limitation of strange situation:
Confounding variable of temperament
A limitation of the strange situation is that there is a confounding variable of the temperament of the infant
The strange situation measured a child’s response to anxiety being produced by being in an unfamiliar environment.
However, what is more controversial, is whether the main influence on this anxiety is attachment, as ainsworth assumed.
Kagan (1982) has in fact suggested that temperament is a more important influence on behaviour in the strange situation. It means that temperament may be a confounding variable. This is a limitation as it means the strange situation may be lacking in validity, due to affect of confounding variables, like temperament, that influence the findings.
Limitation of strange situation:
Ainsworth’s classification system of attachment is incomplete
There is the possibility that Ainsworth’s classification system of attachment types is incomplete.
Main & Solomon (1986) conducted subsequent research whereby they analysed several hundred Strange Situation episodes via videotape and suggested that Ainsworth overlooked a fourth type.
It was noted that some infants showed inconsistent patterns of behaviour which they termed Type D; insecure– disorganised.
Further support for this claim comes from a meta‐analysis of studies from the US conducted by van
Ijzendoorn et al. (1999) which found that 15% of infants were, in fact, classified as Type D, suggesting that Ainsworth’s original assessment of attachment is unable to fully explain all of the different types of attachment in children
What is a meta analysis?
A meta-analysis is when no new research is conducted.
The researchers carrying out the meta-analysis use findings and results from previously conducted studies in order to draw conclusions about (in this case) cross cultural variations in attachment.
Cultural Variations in Attachment, including Van Ijzendoorn
Aim:
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) wanted to investigate if attachment styles (secure and insecure) are universal (the same) across cultures, or culturally specific (vary considerably from place to place, due to traditions, the social environment, or beliefs about children).
Cultural Variations in Attachment, including Van Ijzendoorn.
Procedure:
Compared the findings of 32 studies across 8 different countries that used the strange situation to measure attachment type.
Specifically comparing Western (e.g. Britain and Germany) and non-western cultures (e.g. Japan, China).
Cultural Variations in Attachment, including Van Ijzendoorn.
Findings:
There was wide variation between the proportions of attachment types of different studies.
In all countries Secure attachment was the most common attachment type. However, the proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China.
Insecure-Resistant was overall the least common type although, the proportions ranged from 3% in Britain to 30% in Israel.
Insecure-Avoidant attachments were observed most commonly in Germany and least commonly in Japan.
Cultural Variations in Attachment, including Van Ijzendoorn.
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 that this type of attachment is the universal norm.
However, the research also shows that cultural practices in child rearing have an influence on attachment type.
Strength of research into Cross Cultural Variations of Attachment
Large samples:
A strength of combining the results of attachment studies carried out in different countries is that researchers can end with a very large sample.
For example, in the Van Ijzendoorn meta-analysis there was a total of nearly 2000 babies and their primary attachment figures.
This is a strength because large samples increase internal validity by reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by bad methodology.
Limitation of research into Cross Cultural Variations of Attachment
Method of assessment is biased
However, comparing cultures using the same ‘Strange Situation’ attachment behaviour interpretations may be ‘ethnocentric’.
For example, the Strange Situation was designed by Ainsworth (an American researcher) based on a British theory (Bowlby).
In the strange situation, a lack of separation anxiety and a lack of pleasure on reunion indicate an insecure attachment. In Germany, this behaviour may be seen as independence rather than avoidance and hence not a sign of insecurity within that cultural context.
This is a problem because it can be questioned whether Anglo-American theories and assessments can be applied to other cultures (imposed etic).
Therefore, cross cultural comparisons using the ‘strange situation’ may lack validity.
Limitation of research into Cross Cultural Variations of Attachment
Samples tend to be unrepresentative
The meta- analysis by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg claimed to study cultural variation, whereas, in fact the comparisons were between countries, not cultures.
Within any country there are many different cultures, each with different child rearing practices. One sample might, for example overrepresent people living in poverty, the stress of which might affect caregiving and hence patterns of attachment
An analysis by Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi (2001) found that distributions of attachment type in Tokyo (an urban setting) were similar to Western studies, whereas a more rural sample had an over- representation of insecure - resistant individuals
This means that comparisons between countries (such as Italy or Korea) may have little meaning; the particular cultural characteristics (and thus the caregiving styles) of the sample needs to be specified
Definition of Maternal Deprivation:
The emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and his/her mother or mother-substitute.
Bowlby proposed that continuous care from a mother is essential for normal psychological development, and that prolonged separation from this adult causes serious damage to emotional and intellectual development.
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (1951)
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (1951) focuses on how the effects of early experiences may interfere with the usual process of attachment formation.
Bowlby proposed that separation from the mother or mother-substitute has a serious effect on psychological development.
Bowlby famously said that ‘mother-infant love in infancy and childhood is more important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health.’
Being separated from a mother in early childhood can have serious consequences according to Bowlby.
Privation:
Is where no attachments have ever been formed.
Critical period in Bowlbys theory of MD
He argued that the first 2.5 years of life, the critical period, were crucial.
If the child was separated from their primary attachment figure (often the mother) for an extended period of time and in the absence of substitute care damage was inevitable
Effects of maternal deprivation:
Use the acronym - ADDIDDAS to remember the effects of maternal deprivation:
Aggression, Delinquency, Dwarfism, Intellectual retardation, Depression, Dependency, Affectionless Psychopathy, Social maladjustment.
Effects of maternal deprivation:
Use the acronym - ADDIDDAS to remember the effects of maternal deprivation:
Aggression, Delinquency, Dwarfism, Intellectual retardation, Depression, Dependency, Affectionless Psychopathy, Social maladjustment.
Bowlby’s 44 Thieves Study
Aim:
To investigate the long-term effects of maternal deprivation.
Bowlby’s 44 Thieves Study
Procedure:
Sample was 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing.
All ‘thieves’ were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy (characterised as a lack of guilt about their actions, lack of empathy for their victims and a lack of affection.
Their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether the ‘thieves’ had prolonged early separation from their mothers.
A control group of non-criminals but emotionally disturbed individuals was set up to see how often maternal deprivation/separation occurred in children who were not thieves.
Bowlby’s 44 Thieves Study
Findings:
14 out of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths.
Of this 14, 12 had experienced separation from their mothers in the first 2 years of their lives.
In contrast, only 5 of the remaining 30 ‘thieves’ had experienced separations.
Of the control group, only 2 out of 44 had experienced long term separations.
Bowlby’s 44 Thieves Study
Conclusion:
It was concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.
Limitation of Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation
Counter evidence
Research from Lewis (1954) challenges Bowlby’s findings into maternal deprivation.
For example, Lewis partially replicated Bowlby’s 44 thieves study on a larger scale, looking at 500 young people.
In her sample, a history of prolonged separation from the mother did not predict criminality or difficulty in forming close relationships.
This is a problem for the theory of maternal deprivation because it suggests that other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation.
Strength of Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation
Supporting evidence
Further research has supported Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Theory.
For example, Goldfarb (1955) followed up 30 war orphaned children to age 12. Of his original sample, half had been fostered by the age of 4 whilst the other half remained in the orphanage. At the age of 12, both groups of orphans IQ was tested. The group fostered had an average IQ of 96, whereas the group that wasn’t fostered by age 4 had an average IQ of 68.
This is a strength because, Goldfarb’s findings reiterate the main assumptions of Bowlby’s theory showing that early separation and the deprivation can lead to long lasting effects on infant development and development in later life.
However, this evidence can be seen as flawed. War-orphans were traumatised and often had poor after care, therefore these factors might have been the causes of later developmental difficulties rather than separation
Limitation of Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation
Investigator bias in 44 thieves study
However, Bowlby’s findings from the 44 thieves study can be criticised for investigator bias.
For example, other Psychologists have suggested that Bowlby’s study had some major design flaws and most importantly bias.
Bowlby himself carried out the investigation, the individual assessments for affectionless psychopathy and the family interviews knowing what he hoped to find.
Developmental psychologists have suggested that Bowlby may have interpreted the findings in a bias way in order to generate support for his theory.
This is problematic because if Bowlby’s findings have been affected by investigator bias, this will mean that his theory is based on bias results and therefore can be criticised as being inaccurate.
Limitation of Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation
Failure to distinguish between deprivation and privation
Critics such as Rutter have also accused Bowlby of not distinguishing between deprivation and privation – the complete lack of an attachment bond, rather than its loss.
Rutter stresses that the quality of the attachment bond is the most important factor, rather than just deprivation in the critical period.
Rutter’s ERA (English Romanian Adoptee) Study
Aim:
To investigate the effects of early institutionalisation and deprivation on later life development.
Rutter’s ERA (English Romanian Adoptee) Study
Procedure
Rutter et al (2011) followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain to test to what extent good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions.
Physical, Cognitive and Emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years old.
A group of 15 English children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
Rutter’s ERA (English Romanian Adoptee) Study
Findings
When they first arrived in the UK, half the adoptees showed signs of mental retardation and were undernourished.
At the age of 11, the children showed differential rates of recovery that were linked to their age of adoption.
The mean IQ of those children adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared with 86 for those adopted between 6 months and 2 years and 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
Those children who were adopted after 6 months showed signs of disinhibited attachment (attention seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults (familiar and unfamiliar).
Those infants adopted before the age of 6 months rarely displayed this type of attachment.
Rutter’s ERA (English Romanian Adoptee) Study
Conclusion:
This study concludes that early maternal deprivation and a failure to form an attachment within the critical period can lead to long lasting effects on development in later life (long term effects).
The Effects of Institutionalisation
Poor Parenting:
A child who has experienced a lack of emotional care may grow up to be a poor parent.
For example, Harlow witnessed the effects of poor parenting with the monkeys who had been placed with a surrogate during the first few months of their life.
Harlow followed the monkeys into their adult life and found that when they became parents quite often they rejected their offspring and, in some extreme cases they killed their offspring
The Effects of Institutionalisation
Deprivation Dwarfism:
Gardner (1972) showed that children who have experienced a lack of emotional care may show physical underdevelopment as well as emotional problems e.g. they may be physically small.
It is thought that the lack of emotional care itself (rather than poor nourishment) may be the cause of this.
The production of hormones such as growth hormones are affected by the severe emotional disturbance resulting in physical underdevelopment (or dwarfism).
The case study of Genie illustrates the possibility of deprivation dwarfism as a result of a lack of emotional care during the critical period.
The Effects of Institutionalisation
Mental retardation
In Rutters study most children showed signs of mental retardation when they arrived in Britain.
However most of those adopted before they were 6 months old caught up with the control group by the age of 4
It appears that damage to intellectual development as a result of institutionalisation can be recovered provided adoption takes place before the age of 6 months
The Effects of Institutionalisation
Disinhibited attachment
Disinhibited attachment is a typical effect of spending time in an institution.
Disinhibited attachment is where children don’t discriminate between people they choose as attachment figures.
The child doesn’t seem to prefer his or her parents over other people, even strangers.
The child seeks comfort and attention from virtually anyone, without distinction.
They will treat strangers with overfriendliness and may be attention seeking.
Strength of Romanian orphan studies:
Real life application
A strength of this research is that studying the Romanian orphans has enhanced psychologist’s understanding of the effects of institutionalisation.
Langton (2006) has suggested that such knowledge developed through this research has changed the way children in institutions are cared for. For example, orphanages and children’s homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child and instead ensure that a much smaller number of people, (perhaps only one or two people/keyworkers) play a central role for the child.
This is a strength because, having a key worker means that children have the chance to develop normal attachments and helps to avoid disinhibited attachment types. This shows that research into institutionalisation has been immensely valuable in practical terms.
Strength of Romanian orphan studies:
Fewer extraneous variables than other orphan studies
Another strength of this study is that there were fewer extraneous variables in the Romanian orphan studies in comparison to other orphan studies where infants involved had experienced a lot of trauma before they were institutionalised.
For example, the children may have experienced neglect, abuse of bereavement. These children were often traumatised by their experiences. It was very hard for psychologists to observe the effects of institutionalisation in isolation because the children were dealing with multiple factors which functioned as confounding participant variables.
This is a strength because, in the case of the Romanian orphans it has been possible to study institutionalisation without these confounding variables. This means that the findings have high internal validity and a cause and effect relationship can be established.
Limitation of Romanian orphan studies:
The Romanian orphanages were not typical
However, a problem with the Romanian orphans is that they were not typical.
For example, Romanian orphanages had particular poor standards of care, especially when it came to forming any new relationships with the children, and extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation.
This is a limitation of the Romanian orphans study because the unusual situational variables means that studies may lack generalisability and therefore, the findings cannot be applied to the understanding of the impact of better quality care institutions
The Influence of Early Attachments on Later Relationships
The quality of a child’s first attachment is crucial because this template will powerfully affect the nature of their future relationships (the internal working model).
A child whose first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to assume that this is how relationships are meant to be.
They will seek out functional relationships and behave functionally within them (without being too emotionally involved or emotionally close).
A child with bad experiences of their first attachment will bring these bad experience to bear on later life relationships.
These individuals may struggle to form relationships in the first place or they may behave inappropriately when they have managed to form relationships.
Relationships in Later Childhood:
Attachment type is associated with the quality of peer relationships in childhood.
Secure Attachment
· Form the best quality childhood friendships
· Unlikely to be a part of bullying behaviour (according to Wilson and Smith (1998) who used standard questionnaires in 196 children in London aged 7-11).
Insecure-Resistant
· Form poorer quality friendships
· Most likely to be bullies (according to Wilson and Smith’s (1998) questionnaire research.
Insecure-Avoidant
· Form poorer quality friendships
· Most likely to be victims of bullying (according to Wilson and Smith’s (1998) questionnaire research)
Relationships in Adulthood as a Parent:
Internal Working Models also affect the child’s ability to parent their own children.
People tend to base their parenting styles on their internal working model so attachment type tends to be passed on through generations of a family.
Bailey et al (2007) tested this idea. They assessed 99 mothers with 1 year old babies on the quality of their attachment to their own mothers using a standard interview procedure. The researchers 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 therefore supports the idea of an internal working model and the fact that early attachments can shape our later life relationships.
Relationships in Adulthood with Romantic Partners:
Hazen and Shaver (1987) conducted the ‘Love Quiz’ which aimed to investigate the impact of early attachments on later life adult behaviour.
Procedure: 620 replies to the Love Quiz printed in an American local newspaper were analysed. The quiz had three sections. The first assessed the respondent’s current or most important relationship. The second part assessed general love experiences such as the numbers of partners and the third assessed attachment type by asking respondents to choose which of three statements best described their feelings.
Findings: 56% of respondents were identified as securely attached, 25% insecure-avoidant and 19% insecure-resistant. Those reporting secure attachments were the most likely to have good and longer lasting relationships. The avoidant responses tended to reveal jealousy and fear of intimacy.
Conclusions: These findings suggest that the patterns of attachment behaviour are reflected in romantic relationships.
Limitation of Research into the Influence of Early Attachment on Later Relationships:
Evidence on continuity of attachment type is mixed
A weakness is that the evidence on continuity of attachment type is mixed.
For example, some studies do appear to support continuity and so provide evidence to support internal working models.
However, Zimmerman (2000) assessed infant attachment type and adolescent attachment to parents. The findings indicated that there was very little relationship between quality of infant and adolescent attachment.
This is a problem because this outcome is not what would be expected if the internal working models were important in development.
Limitation of Research into the Influence of Early Attachment on Later Relationships:
Most studies have issues of validity
Another weakness is that most studies of the influences of early attachment on later relationships lack validity.
For example, many assessments of early attachments and current day attachments rely on the use of questionnaires and interviews (self-report methods) as a means of categorising participants as a specific attachment type.
This is a weakness because this data is retrospective (data that relies on the participants memory – i.e. they are reporting events from the past that will be used as data in an experiment), there is a high chance that the data being collected in these studies is inaccurate and therefore calls into question the validity of the research findings.
Limitation of Research into the Influence of Early Attachment on Later Relationships:
Association does not mean causality
However, a problem with research assessing the Internal Working Model is that association between early and later life attachments does not always mean causality.
For example, there are alternative explanations for the continuity that is often observed between infant and adult attachments.
A third environmental factor such as parenting style might have a direct effect on both attachment and the child’s ability to form relationships with others.
Alternatively, the child’s temperament may influence both infant attachment and the quality of later life relationships.
This is a limitation because it is counter to Bowlby’s view that the internal working model causes these later outcomes.
Evaluation of continuity hypothesis:
Reductionist theory
This theory is accused of being reductionist because it assumes that people who are insecurely attached as infants would have poor quality adult relationships.
This is not always the case.
Researchers found plenty of people having happy relationships despite having insecure attachments. Therefore the theory might be an oversimplification.
Evaluation of continuity hypothesis:
Alternative explanation
An alternative explanation for continuity in relationships is the temperament hypothesis which argues that an infant’s temperament affects the way a parent responds and so may be a determining factor in infant attachment type.
The infant’s temperament may explain their issues (good or bad) with relationships in later life.
