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.