Attachment Flashcards
What Is Attachment?
Attachment is an emotional tie or bond between two people, (usually a caregiver and a child),
The relationship is RECIPROCAL, which means it is shared and a two-way relationship. This shows how it endures over time,
Interactions between caregivers and children are a subject of psychological research as they provide an insight into the type and nature of attachment.
What Is Reciprocity?
Reciprocity is when an infant responds to the actions of another person in a form of turn-taking,
Actions of one person elicits a response from the other,
Brazelton et al (1975) describes this interaction as a ‘dance’ because when a couple dance, they respond to each toe he’s movement and rhythm,
Feldman (2007) says that from 3 months old, reciprocity increases in frequency as the infant and caregiver pay increasing attention to each other’s verbal and facial communications.
This interaction lays foundations for attachment to develop later.
What Is Interactional Synchrony?
Interactional synchrony takes place when infants mirror the actions or emotions of another person,
This could be facial expressions,
This mirroring can be referred to as ‘imitation’ or simply copying the adults behaviour,
The acts are simultaneous and the two are said to be synchronised,
This interaction sustains communication between the two individuals.
Meltzoff and Moore?
1977 - Key Study,
Aim: To examine Interactional synchrony in infants.
Method:
- Used a controlled observation,
- An adult displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions or a hand gesture,
- The child has a dummy placed in their mouth to prevent a facial response,
- Following the display from the adult, the dummy is removed and the child’s expressions were filmed.
Results:
- There was a clear association between the infants behaviour and that of the adults model,
- Later research by these people found the same finding in three day old infants.
Conclusion:
- These finishing suggest that Interactional synchrony is innate and rescuers the strength of any claim that imitative behaviour is learned.
Caregiver-infant interactions AO1 and AO3?
Define attachment,
Define reciprocity and Interactional synchrony.
Use Meltzoff and Moore as supporting evidence for this.
Criticise Meltzoff and Moore’s study.
Evaluation Of Caregiver-Infant Interactions?
Limitation: questionable reliability,
Infants move their mouths and arms constantly,
Some of the infants behaviour may have occurred by chance so researchers cannot be certain weather the infants were partaking in international synchrony or reciprocity,
Limitation: observer bias,
Researchers may consciously or unconsciously interpret the infants behaviour to support their findings,
To address this issue, more than one observer should be used to examine the inter-observer reality of the observations,
Research by Koepke et al (1983) failed to replicate the finding of Meltzoff and Moore,
Limitation (And Strength): Isabelle et al (1983),
Research suggests that only securely attached infants engage in international synchrony,
Isabelle found that the more securely attached an infant is, the greater level of international synchrony,
This suggests that Meltzoff and Moore’s research is accurate to an extent, as they overlooked individual differences.
What Are The Stages Of Attachment?
Asocial,
Indiscriminate Attachments,
Discriminate (Specific) Attachments,
Multiple Attachments,
These stages show how attachment develops in an infant from birth.
Asocial?
- From birth to two months,
- Similar respond to objects and people,
- End of stage, they show preference for eyes and faces,
- First stage of attachment.
Indiscriminate Attachment?
- From two to six months,
- Infant shows a preference for human company over non-human company,
- They can distinguish between different people but are comforted by anyone,
- Second stage of attachment.
Discriminate (Specific) Attachment?
- From seven to twelve months,
- Infant shows a preference for one caregiver,
- Stranger and separation anxiety,
- The infant looks to a particular person for security and protection,
- Shows joy on arrival of primary caregiver,
- Third stage of attachment.
Multiple Attachments?
- One year onwards,
- Attachment behaviours are now displayed towards several different people,
- They are sometimes referred to as secondary attachments,
- They typically form in the first month after the primary attachment is formed and the number of multiple attachments which develop depends on the social circle to whom the infant is exposed.
Schaffer And Emerson?
- To examine the formation of early attachments,
- 60 babies (29 female and 31 male) from working class families in Glasgow (5-23 weeks of age),
- 12 months - visited babies first time,
- 18 months - visited babies second time,
- Interviewed months and observed children in relation to separation anxiety,
Results:
- Different stages of attachment showed,
- At 12 months, 25-32 weeks, 50% kids showed attachment issues and at 18 months, 80% of kids showed attachment issues,
- At 18 months, 30% had started to form multiple,
Conclusion:
- Results price support for Schaffer’s stages of attachment.
- Results revealed that attachments were most likely to form with carers who were sensitive to the baby’s signals, rather than the person they spent the most time with.
Evaluation Of Schaffer And Emerson?
1964,
Strength: high external validity,
They conducted the observations in each child’s home so infants and parents are likely to act normally,
Good external validity means results are likely to apply to other children from similar demographic,
Limitation: lacks population validity,
Study consisted of only 60 working class mothers and babies from Glasgow - different social classes and areas may form different attachments with their children,
Unable to generalise the results of this study to mothers and babies from other countries and backgrounds.
Limitation: social desirable bias,
Schaffer and Emerson interviewed the mothers about their children and these mothers may not have reported accurately to the researchers - to appear like a ‘better’ mother with secure attachments,
Natural beahviour may not have been recorder due to this bias - this reduces the external validity of the research.
The Role Of The Father?
- Traditionally, the role of the father may have been limited,
- Psychologists disagree over the extract role of the father,
- Some say males are not equipped to form attachments with infants; they don’t have hormone oestrogen which underlies a caring behaviour in women which men cannot have,
- Other researchers argue fathers should be playmates,
- Other psychologists argue that fathers can be sensitive and respond to the needs of their children and can form a strong emotional tie or bond.
Evaluation Of The Role Of The Father?
Strength: Geiger (1996),
Research evidence provides support for the fathers role being ‘playmate’,
Found that fathers play interactions were more exciting in comparison to mothers,
Mothers play interactions were more nurturing an affectionate,
This suggests the fathers role is as a playmate and not to respond the the needs of the child,
This also suggests the mother takes on a nurturing role,
Strength: Hrdy (1999),
Research evidence shows fathers are not as equipped as mothers,
Mothers are more able to detect low levels of distress then fathers,
This supports the biological explanation that fathers do not obtain enough oestrogen to form close attachments with their infant,
This suggests that the role of the father is, to some extent, biologically determined,
Limitation: Belsky et al (2009),
Research suggests fathers can form secure attachments with their infants, if they are in an intimate marriage,
Belsky found that fathers who have higher levels of marital intimacy also displayed a secure father-infant attachment,
This suggests males can form strong attachments with their infants, however, this depends on the marital intimacy of their marriage, (individual differences).
Issues And Debates Of Caregiver-Infant Interactions?
Psychologists suggest that caregiver-infant interactions (e.g. reciprocity) are present from birth and therefore are the product of nature,
However, the innate behaviours interact with the environment and not in isolation to prompt a response (attention),
Schaffer’s stages of attachment theory takes a nomothetic approach as it proposes a general law for child development,
However, these theories cannot apply to every child,
Schaffer suggested that before multiple attachment, single attachments occur - this cannot be true in all cultures, especially cultures that partake in community mothering.
Animal studies?
Early research into attachment was often conducted on non-human animals on the basis that there is biological similarity between animals and humans. Therefore, if something was observed in animal attachment behaviour, it stands to reason that it could also be applied to humans.
Benefits:
- Research studies using animal subjects are often seen as more ethical than when conducted with human participants.
- Since researchers are often interested in seeing results over a life span there are also practical advantages of using animals since they breed faster than humans do.
Lorenz and Harlow both conducted animals studies to study attachment.
Key study: Lorenz AO1?
Aim: To examine the phenomenon of imprinting in non-human animals. Imprinting is when the offspring follows and forms an attachment bond to the first large moving object they see after birth.
Method: Lorenz conducted an experiment where he randomly divided greylag goose eggs into two batches. Control group - hatched naturally by the mother. Experimental group - placed in an incubator, with Lorenz making sure he was the first large moving object that the goslings saw after hatching.
The following behaviour, of either the mother goose or Lorenz, was recorded. Lorenz then marked the goslings so he knew in which condition they were hatched and then placed them under an upside-down box. The box was then removed and their following behaviour of the mother goose and Lorenz was recorded again.
Results:
- Lorenz found that straight after birth the naturally-hatched goslings followed their mother goose, whereas the incubator-hatched goslings followed Lorenz.
- When the upside-down box was taken away, the naturally-hatched goslings moved immediately towards their mother, while the incubator-hatched goslings followed Lorenz, showing no attachment to their biological mother.
- Lorenz noted that this imprinting only
occurred within a critical period of 4–25 hours after hatching. This relationship persisted over time and proved to be irreversible.
Conclusion: These results suggest that imprinting is a form of attachment that is exhibited by birds that typically leave the nest early, whereby they imprint onto the first large moving object they encounter after hatching.
Key study - Lorenz AO3?
Weakness - Lorenz only studied non-human animals, we cannot generalise the results to humans since we are unable to conclude that they would behave in exactly the same way. The attachment formation in mammals appears to be very different to that of bird species - parents show more emotional reactions to their offspring with the added ability of being able to form attachments beyond the first few hours after birth. Results of thr study cannot be confidently applied to humans.
Weakness & strength - Guiton et al found that chickens would imprint on yellow washing up gloves if that was the largest moving object they first saw after birth and that, in turn, they would then try to mate with that object in adulthood. However, Guiton et al concluded the chickens could eventually learn to prefer mating with other chickens instead, suggesting that the effects of imprinting may not be as permanent as initially thought.
Key study - Harlow AO1?
Aim: To examine the extent to which contact comfort and food influences attachment behaviour in baby rhesus monkeys.
Method: Harlow constructed two surrogate mothers: one harsh ‘wire mother’ and a second soft ‘towelling mother’. A sample of sixteen baby rhesus monkeys were used across the four caged conditions:
- ‘Wire mother’ dispensing milk and ‘towelling mother’ with no milk.
- ‘Wire mother’ with no milk and ‘towelling mother’ dispensing milk.
- ‘Wire mother’ dispensing milk.
- ‘Towelling mother’ dispensing milk.
The amount of time the baby rhesus monkey spent with each mother was recorded, alongside how long they spent feeding at each one.
To test for mother preference during periods of stress, the monkeys were startled with a loud noise and their responses recorded.
A larger cage was used in some conditions in order to observe the degree of exploration by the baby rhesus monkeys.
Results: Harlow discovered that, when given a choice of surrogate mother, the baby monkeys preferred to make contact with the soft ‘towelling mother’ irrespective of whether she dispensed milk.
The baby monkeys in the condition with only the ‘wire mother’ showed sign of stress such as diarrhoea.
When startled by the loud noise, the baby rhesus monkeys would cling tightly to the soft ‘towelling mother’ in the conditions where this surrogate was available to them. When given larger caged conditions, greater exploration behaviour was seen by the baby monkeys with the ‘towelling mother’ surrogate, which is indicative of emotional security.
Conclusion:
- Harlow concluded that baby rhesus monkeys appear to have an innate drive to seek contact comfort from their parent suggesting that attachment is formed through an emotional need for security rather than food, which is in contrast to the learning theory explanation.
- This contact comfort provided by the mother is associated by a higher willingness to explore their surroundings and lower levels of stress.
Key study - Harlow AO3?
Strength - real-world application. Howe reports that the knowledge gained from Harlow’s research has helped social workers understand risk factors in neglect and abuse cases with human children which can then serve to prevent it occurring or, at the very least, recognise when to intervene.
Strength - real world application again. There are practical applications which are used in the care of captive wild monkeys in zoos or breeding programmes to ensure that they have adequate attachment figures as part of their care.
Weakness - Harlow was criticised for the ethics of his research on baby rhesus monkeys. The monkeys suffered greatly in terms of emotional separation from their biological mother at such an early age due to the procedure Harlow used.
Weakness - There is an issue with applying findings from animal research to humans. Although the participants of Harlow’s research were baby rhesus monkeys which are non-human, it could be argued that they are far more like humans than the geese that Lorenz studied. It is still heavily debated amongst psychologists as to what extent studies of animals, specifically primates, should be generalised to the human population due to their apparent differences.
What are the two explanations for attachment?
The learning theory - which explains attachment through operant and classical conditioning.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory.
The learning theory in explaining attachment - AO1?
The learning theory explanation for attachment explains how infants learn to become attached to their primary caregiver through the process of either classical or operant conditioning.
Before classical conditioning, food is an unconditioned stimulus which produces an unconditioned response in the offspring – relief from hunger (pleasure). This unconditioned stimulus (food) is then associated with the caregiver who feeds them (the neutral stimulus). Through repeated pairing, the caregiver becomes a conditioned stimulus who is associated with the pleasure from feeding. This results in the caregiver eliciting a conditioned response (relief from hunger/pleasure) from the child and the formation of an attachment.
Dollard and Miller applied Skinner’s principles of operant conditioning to explain human attachment between a caregiver and an infant.
When an infant feels hunger, it cries to reduce this discomfort. When the caregiver provides food, the discomfort is reduced (pleasure) which is rewarding. This is positive reinforcement. This is a reciprocal process because the child will cry to reduce the discomfort again, therefore, negative reinforcement is experienced in the caregiver (the infant stops crying), so they too will repeat the caregiving behaviour again in the future.
Hunger is the primary drive and the food is the primary reinforcer. Attachment, called the secondary drive, will occur because the infant will seek the person who can supply the reward from the caregiver (secondary reinforcer).
The learning theory in explaining attachment - AO3?
Weakness - there is research conducted by Harlow which criticises the learning theory in explaining attachment. Harlow found that baby rhesus monkeys spent more time with a soft towelling money which provided no food, in comparison to a wire monkey which provided food. This shows that monkeys do not form attachments for food/survival purposes only, and also for comfort. This suggests that the process of positive reinforcement through associating food and a caregiver is not the sole purpose for attachments.
Weakness - This argument is further supported by Schaffer and Emmerson’s research which demonstrated that infants formed attachments to their mothers despite often being fed by other carers. Furthermore, Lorenz found that baby geese follow the first moving object they saw upon hatching (imprinting). This shows that non-human animals demonstrate some inborn attachment behaviours to aid survival which goes against the idea that we ‘learn’ to attach to a caregiver because they feed us. Furthermore, Lorenz concluded a critical period whereby imprinting can take place (4-25 hours). This would not be enough time for the birds to learn any behaviour. This strengthens the argument that animal attachment is predetermined by innate behaviour, and not learnt.
Weakness - A final criticism of the learning theory is that it is environmentally reductionist. The theory suggests that attachments are the result of learning through classical/operant conditioning, and therefore support a nurture based view of behaviour. (Weakness -) Bowlby suggested an alternative theory for the development of attachments. He believed that infants have an innate readiness during the critical period to form an attachment to their caregiver to increase chances of survival. This suggests that further factors surrounding nature also contribute to attachment development. More research should be conducted in order to test the extent of nature and nurture factors in explaining attachment.
Bowlby’s montropic theory in explaining attachment - AO1?
Bowlby’s monotropic theory suggests that children form attachments in order to increase their chance of survival.
The theory involves five key factors for attachment development.
Attachments are adaptive; humans are more likely to survive because they are kept safe and given food by primary caregivers.
Attachments are social releasers; infants possess inborn physical (e.g. cute features) and behavioural (e.g. crying) factors which cause a tendency in adults to care for them.
Attachments must form during the critical period (between three and six months of age). Bowlbly suggested that attachments can form up to three years of age, but they become increasingly difficult to form. If attachments do not form, the child will suffer from social, emotional, physical and intellectual damage for life.
Attachments are monotropy; an infant forms one special attachment with their primary caregiver, called a monotropy (usually the mother). However, if the mother is not available, the infant will form this attachment with another adult.
Monotropic attachments form an internal working model (a template for future relationships). E.g. if a child has a strong and healthy attachment with their primary attachment figure, then they will develop strong and healthy relationships, later in life.
Bowlby’s theory for explaining attachment - AO3?
- Lorenz provided research evidence that supports bowlby’s theory. Lorenz found that baby geese followed the first moving object they saw after hatching, during a 12–17 hour critical period (imprinting). This supports Bowbly’s idea of a critical period for attachment development.
- Another strength of Bowlby’s theory comes from further research. Hazan and Shaver used a questionnaire called ‘The Love Quiz’ and found a positive correlation between early attachment types and later adult relationships. This supports Bowlby’s idea of an internal working model and suggests that our early childhood experiences do affect our later adult relationships. Both of these studies support Bowlby’s key factors in his theory, suggesting that the internal working model and critical period are strong factors in attachment development.
- Schaffer and Emerson studied 60 babies from Glasgow at monthly intervals for the first 18 months of life using a longitudinal method. It was observed that the mother was the main attachment figure for roughly half of the babies when they were 18 months old and the father for most of the others. This provides evidence for the montophy pattern of attachment in Bowbly’s theory which suggests that infants form a special attachment with one primary caregiver.
- Furthermore, Tronick et al studied the Efe tribe (located in Zaire, Africa) who live in extended family groups where infants are cared for and breast fed by multiple women. Tronick found that despite the extended family, infants preferred to sleep with their own mothers at night and showed a primary attachment to their own mothers at 6 months. Both studies support Bowlby’s monotropic attachment pattern in infants, and also suggests his theory for attachment development is strong enough to be generalised to different cultures.
- A weakness of Bowlby’s theory is an alternative explanation for attachment. Kagan proposed the temperament hypothesis, suggesting a child inherits personality traits (temperaments) which influences their ability to form an attachment with their caregiver. For example, a temperament may cause a child to be more sociable, and therefore form more secure attachments with multiple adults. Bowlby ignored the role of temperament in his theory, which could explain why infants become securely or insecurely attached.
- Furthermore, Bowlby’s theory is criticised for being too deterministic; he describes attachments as being innate mechanisms that aid survival, and therefore ignores other biological and physiological factors such as emotions in humans, and biological hormones released when mothers give birth (oxytocin) which creates a tendency to care for the offspring. These criticisms suggest that more research is needed to strengthen the theory further.
‘Two mothers at the toddler and parent group are chatting.
“I always felt sorry for my husband when Millie was a baby. He used to say his bond with
Millie was not as strong as mine because I was breastfeeding.”
“I’m not sure”, replies the other mother. “I think there’s something about a mother’s love
that makes it more special anyway – and so important for future development.”
Discuss the learning theory of attachment and Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment. Refer to the conversation above in your answer.’
Bowlby’s monotropic theory suggests that children form attachments in order to increase their chance of survival. The theory involves five key factors for attachment development; adaptivity; social releasers; critical period; montrophy; and internal working model. “He used to say his bond with Millie was not as strong as mine because I was breastfeeding” is supported by Bowlby’s theory for attachment development. Montrophy is a key factor in Bowbly’s theory; suggesting infants form one special attachment with their primary caregiver, called a monotropy (usually the mother). There is research evidence to support this. Schaffer and Emerson studied 60 babies from Glasgow at monthly intervals for the first 18 months of life using a longitudinal method. Schaffer and Emmerson concluded that infants were most likely to form attachments with carers who were sensitive to the baby’s signals, rather than the person they spent the most time with. This supports the mothers idea that her bond with the baby is stronger than the infant’s fathers because she was breastfeeding, and therefore responding to the baby’s signals (e.g. crying when hungry).
However, “He used to say his bond with Millie was not as strong as mine because I was breastfeeding” can also be explained through classical conditioning. The mother quotes that she is breastfeeding/feeding Millie. Before classical conditioning, food is an unconditioned stimulus which produces an unconditioned response in Millie– relief from hunger (pleasure). This unconditioned stimulus (food) is then associated with Millie’s mother who feeds them (the neutral stimulus). Through repeated pairing, the mother becomes a conditioned stimulus who is associated with the pleasure from feeding. This results in the caregiver eliciting a conditioned response (relief from hunger/pleasure) from Millie and the formation of an attachment. This suggests that the bond between the mother and infant is stronger than the father-infant relationship because the mother is being associated through classical conditioning with pleasure, whilst the father is not.
“And so important for future development” can be explained through Bowbly’s theory. Another factor in the theory is the internal working model which forms an internal template for future relationships. For example, if Millie has a strong and healthy attachment with the mother, then they will develop strong and healthy relationships, later in life. The internal working model can be supported by Hazan and Shaver who used a questionnaire called ‘The Love Quiz’ and found that early attachment types create an internal template for later relationships. For example, if Millie’s attachment with her mother is secure, her relationships with others in the future will be stable, warm and secure.
“I think there’s something about a mother’s love that makes it more special anyway…” shows how the mother believes that her relationship with her infant is more ‘special’ in comparison to the father-infant relationship. This can be explained by operant conditioning in the learning theory. When the mother provides food, the discomfort in Millie is reduced (pleasure), which is rewarding. This is positive reinforcement. This is a reciprocal process because Millie will cry to reduce the discomfort again, and negative reinforcement occurs in Millie’s Mother. This suggests why Millie’s Mother believes that her relationship with Millie is more ‘special’; because negative reinforcement has occurred in Millie’s Mother, associating a response (e.g. breastfeeding) with a reward (e.g. alleviating discomfort because Millie stops crying).
“Discuss the Strange Situation as a way of assessing type of attachment” - AO1?
Ainsworth et al’s strange situation was an overt, observational study to test strengths of attachments between caregivers and infants ages between 9-18 months. The infants were placed in a controlled, unfamiliar room and underwent 8 different scenarios, each 3 minutes long.
The infant and caregiver enter the room and the child is free to explore.
A stranger enters the room.
The stranger approaches the infant and attempts to interact with the infant.
The mother leaves the room. The stranger comforts the infant if the infant is upset.
The mother returns and the stranger leaves.
The mother departs again, leaving the infant alone in the room.
The stranger re-enters the room and comforts the infant.
The mother returns and the stranger leaves.
The infants behaviour was observed and categorised into; separation anxiety (signs of distress when the caregiver leaves); proximity seeking (the infants behaviour when reunited with their caregiver); exploration behaviour (the infant exploration in the environment and whether the caregiver is used as a safe-base); and stranger anxiety (the infant’s response to the presence of a stranger).
Depending on how the child responds in the strange situation, Ainsworth classified the children as securely attached (66%), insecure-avoidant (22%) and insecure-resistant (12%).
“Discuss the Strange Situation as a way of assessing type of attachment” - AO3?
The Strange Situation is criticised for methodology. The observational method was overt, as the mothers knew they were being watched. Therefore, mothers could have consciously or unconsciously influenced their infants behaviour. This means the researchers would not be observing the natural behaviour of the infants, and therefore the results of the study would not accurately represent the behaviour of the infants. This suggests that the internal validity of the study is low.
Another criticism of the Strange Situation is that it lacks ecological validity. Ainsworth conducted the observation in a controlled environment, and therefore the children may have displayed different behaviours in comparison to if they had been in a natural environment. This suggests that we cannot confidently conclude that the effects of the children’s behaviour was solely a result from the attachment type and not also affected by the environment type.
It demonstrates a culture bias. Her theory and methods were based on Western ideals in relation to infant behaviour, categorising a higher proportion of children from other cultures are insecure–avoidant (e.g. Japan) or insecure–resistant (e.g. Germany).
However, one strength of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation is the reliability of the observations.
Ainsworth carried out a further study to test the inter-observer reliability of observers and found a 96% correlation between results of the observers. This suggests that the behavioural categories used in the strange situation were strongly ope rationalised, making it a reliable way of assessing attachment types.
Cultural variations in attachment - AO1?
Aim: To investigate cross-cultural variations in attachment.
Method: Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies from eight different countries that has used Ainsworth’s strange situation. In total, the results of over 1,990 infants were included in the analysis.
Results: There were three key findings:
1) Secure attachment was the most common type of attachment, in all the cultures examined.
2) Japan and Israel (collectivist cultures) showed higher levels of insecure–resistant attachment in comparison to other cultures.
3) Germany (an individualistic culture) showed higher levels of insecure–avoidant attachment, in comparison to other cultures.
Conclusion: Since the global trend seems to reflect the US norm of secure attachment being the most common, it adds weight to the argument that secure attachment is the optimal attachment type for healthy development.
Investigating cultural variations - AO3
Strength: Tronick et al studied the Efe tribe, located in Zaire, Africa, who live in extended family groups where the infants are looked after and even breastfed by different women within the social group. However, infants tend to sleep with their own mothers at night. Although the childrearing practices differ greatly from the Western norms, the infants still showed a preference for a primary attachment figure at six months old, supporting van Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg’s main findings that secure attachment is the most common globally.
Weakness: A culture bias is demonstrated in Ainsworth’s strange situation, reporting significant differences in the distribution of attachment types (secure, insecure– avoidant and insecure–resistant) in different cultures. For example, Germany has the highest rate of insecure–avoidant attachment which may be the result of different childrearing practices and not a more ‘insecure’ population. In Germany, there is a general desire to keep some interpersonal distance between parents and infants; therefore, parents would generally discourage proximity-seeking behaviours within the strange situation which might bias the results of attachment research in Germany, which therefore incorrectly categorise children as ‘insecure’.
Weakness: Grossman and Grossman. In German culture, child rearing practices favour independence from a young age whereby infants do not seek interpersonal contact with their parents. As a result, infants from this country appear to be insecurely attached in the strange situation since they do not seek proximity to their mothers or joy upon reunion. Shows support that individualistic cultures (Germany) cause more insecure-avoidant attachments.
Weakness: A criticism of van Ijzendoorn and Kroonerberg’s research is that they may have been comparing countries and not cultures. For example, they compared Great Britain with Israel in their meta analysis. Within each country there may be many different subcultures, each with their own unique ways of rearing children. Interestingly, the researchers noted that variance within countries was far greater than between countries. It therefore stands to reason that they did, in fact, collect data on subcultures within the countries they investigated rather than the whole nation.
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation - AO1?
(Read the question carefully to make the distinction between Bowlby’s attachment theory and Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory).
Deprivation occurs when an attachment bond is formed between an infant and caregiver but is broken later in life. Separation is when a child is not physically in the presence of a primary caregiver.
Bowlby concluded that if an infant is unable to develop a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with his/her mother (or mother substitute) before the age of 2.5 years, then the child would have difficulty forming relationships with other people and be a risk of behavioural/emotional disorders (including mental health issues and maladjustment).
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation - AO3?
Bowlby conducted a study on 44 juvenile thieves to investigate if early separation from the primary caregiver (deprivation) was associated with behavioural disorders. Bowlby defined a particular behaviour disorder as affection-less psychopathy to describe individuals who have no sense of shame of guilt. Bowlby identified 14 of the 44 thieves as affection-less psychopaths. 12 out of 14 of these affection-less psychopaths had experienced early and prolonged deprivation. Only 17% of the ‘other thieves’ had experienced such separations and 4% of the control group had experienced frequent early separations. These findings suggest a link between early separations and later social maladjustment. The maternal deprivation hypothesis appears to lead to affectionless psychopathy and antisocial behaviour.
A strength of Bowlby’s theory is the application to childrearing practice in the real world. Bowlby’s theory led to a significant change in the way children are cared for in hospital. For example, parents are encouraged to visit their children more in hospital and more flexibility has been allowed to visiting hours to ensure that deprivation doesn’t occur. This shows how Bowlby’s theory has allowed for a positive change in the real world, showing the strength of the therory.
A weakness of Bowlby’s research is that the findings are correlational. Bowlby found a relationship between deprivation and later behavioural issues (affectionless psychopathy), but it is not clear that the early separation caused these issues, as there could have been other factors involved. Therefore, we cannot establish cause and effect relationship to conclude that separation leads to behavioural issues and affectionless psychopathy.
Additional methodological issues with Bowlby’s maternal deprivation research is that he used retrospective data collection by means of an interview. Therefore, the parents of the juvenile thieves may have over/under-estimated the details of early separations with their children, making the results less valid.
Both counter-arguments suggest that the validity of Bowlby’s results may be low. More research should be conducted in order to test the validity of the results.
Weakness (issue and debate) - Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation suggests that children who are deprived of an attachment, usually within a critical period of development, will suffer negative long-term consequences. This suggests that an infant’s life chances are determined by their early attachment experiences.
Effects of institutionalisation - AO1?
Romanian Orphan Study and the Bucharest Intervention study are used to evaluate effects of institutionalisation.
Romanian Orphans:
Record numbers of children had been placed in orphanages as parents could not cope with the strict government rules occurring in Romania (abortion was banned). At the end of this thirty years of this regime, more than 100,000 children were reported to be in 600 state operated orphanages.
Rutter and Songua-Barke examined the long-term effects of institutionalisation in a longitudinal study on 165 children who had spent their early years in a Romanian orphanage (experimental group). 111 of these children were adopted before the age of two, while the remaining 54 were adopted by the age of four. They were compared to a control group of 52 British children, who were adopted before they were six months old.
The social, cognitive and physical development of all infants was examined at regular intervals (age 4, 6, 11 and 15) and interviews were conducted with adoptive parents and teachers.
Results: At the point of adoption, the Romanian orphans showed delayed development on all elements of social, cognitive and physical progress. They were physically smaller, weighed less on average and many were classified as mentally retarded. However, almost all the Romanian orphans who were adopted before the age of six months caught up on these measures of development when compared to the British control group.
The Romanian children who were adopted after six months continued to show significant deficits in terms of social, cognitive and physical development. They were more likely to experience difficulties with making or maintaining peer relationships and were often categorised as having dis-inhibited attachment disorder.
Conclusion: Institutionalisation can have severe long-term effects on development, especially if children are not provided with adequate emotional care giving, i.e. adopted by two years old.
The Bucharest Early Intervention Project:
Zeenah et al investigated attachment type of children who had spent most of their life in institutional care.
A sample of almost one hundred children aged between 12 months and 31 months, 90% of whom had spent most of their lives in an orphanage, were compared to a control group who had never been institutionalised.
Using the strange situation methodology, the researchers assessed the infants’ attachment type. Additionally, the carers in the institution and parents of the control group children were asked about several aspects of the infants’ behaviour including: clinging, attention seeking and appropriateness of behaviour towards adults (to determine if disinhibited attachment disorder was present).
Findings: Found that almost three quarters (74%) of the control group were classified as eing securely attached to their caregivers. Conversely, less than one fifth (19%) of infants from the experimental group, who had spent most of their life in institutional care, were deemed to have a secure attachment. In fact, almost two-thirds of these infants (65%) appeared to have a disinhibited attachment.
Conclusion: Infants who spend their early years in institutional care, with the absence of a primary attachment figure to provide consistent and sensitive emotional caregiving, are less likely to develop a secure attachment and are far more likely, as a result, to experience a disinhibited attachment.
Effects of institutionalisation - AO3?
Strength - One strength of Rutter and Songua-Barke’s research findings from studying the effects of institutionalisation is their real-world application to social services. Historically, mothers were encouraged to keep their babies for a substantial period by which time the critical period for attachment formation may have passed. Nowadays, infants are adopted as early as one-week-old and Singer et al. (1985) states that children are as securely attached to their adoptive mothers and biologically related families. This demonstrates the benefit of institutionalisation research to help improve the lives of children.
Strength - Rutter and Songua-Barke’s research is that their research was longitudinal. Their research took place over many years allowing them to assess both the short-term and long-term effects of institutionalisation and subsequent benefits from adoption. Therefore, the results of their research appear to be a valid representation of the effects of being placed in institutional care as well as portraying the results of receiving quality follow-on emotional caregiving in a timely manner.
Weakness - too deterministic. Romanian Orphan Studies suggest that an infant’s life chances are determined by their early experiences and can lead to: physical underdevelopment, intellectual under functioning, disinhibited attachment and poor parenting. It is suggested that our future experiences are predetermined by early experiences in life. Other factors, such as biological and cognitive factors, could be involved.
Weakness - There are issues of generalisation from Romanian orphan studies. Since the conditions of care were so dire for the Romanian orphans they cannot be considered typical. It stands to reason that the results obtained from studying the Romanian institutions do not represent all situations where children are placed in care and experience deprivation. This lack of external validity is a result of the unusual situational variables due to the harsh political regimes at the time.
Influence of early attachments on childhood relationships with reference to the internal working model - AO1?
Bowlby proposed the notion of the internal working model; a template of expectations about how to relate to others formed by early experiences with the primary caregiver and the type of attachment formed.
The internal working model of an infant is thought to predict the likely outcomes of behaviour in childhood and adulthood. For example, an infant who has experienced sensitive responsiveness from their caregiver will likely form a secure attachment type and come to expect functional, reliable and loving relationships in the future.
Childhood relationships:
- Kerns found that securely attached infants are more inclined to have good quality peer relationships during childhood whilst infants with insecure attachment types are likely to have difficulties with making or maintaining friendships.
- Sroufe et al conducted the Minnesota child–parent study and found that infants who were rated high in social competence during childhood were more empathetic, popular and felt less isolated. These results can be easily understood by considering the role of the internal working model since infants wh are securely attached will have positive expectations that others whom they relate to will be trustworthy and friendly in return, which provides the ideal platform for interacting with others during childhood.
Influence of early attachments on adult relationships with reference to the internal working model - AO1?
Bowlby proposed the notion of the internal working model; a template of expectations about how to relate to others formed by early experiences with the primary caregiver and the type of attachment formed.
The internal working model of an infant is thought to predict the likely outcomes of behaviour in childhood and adulthood. For example, an infant who has experienced sensitive responsiveness from their caregiver will likely form a secure attachment type and come to expect functional, reliable and loving relationships in the future.
Adult relationships - romantic:
Hazan And Shaver designed a questionnaire, termed the ‘Love Quiz’, to test the internal working model to assess if attachment type formed as an infant influences friendships and adult relationships.
The ‘Love Quiz’, comprising three sections, was published in a local American newspaper and received 620 volunteer responses (205 males and 415 females). The first section was designed to assess the individuals’ most important relationship. The second section focused on ascertaining general experiences in love and the third part asked self-selecting participants about their feelings in relation to some statements.
Findings: It was found that 56% respondents were classified as securely attached, 25% with an insecure– avoidant attachment type and 19% as being insecure–resistant. A positive correlation was found between early attachment type and experiences in love with those reporting secure attachments in childhood being
Adult relationships - parenting:
The internal working model influences the parenting style of an individual who goes on to have children of their own.
As a result of parenting styles being based on personal experiences and expectations of the internal working model, attachment type tends to be passed down through the generations of a family.
Bailey et al looked at the attachment type of nearly 100 mothers and their infants (assessed in the strange situation) with the relationships they had with their own mothers (established in an interview). It was found that a vast proportion of the women had the same attachment type to their infant as to their own mother, supporting the concept of the internal working model influencing parenting style.
Likewise, findings from Harlow’s study using non-human animals also mirror this pattern. Monkeys with poor or no attachments were seen to experience difficulties with parenting because of their early, formative experiences.
Influence of early attachments on adult/child relationships with reference to the internal working model - AO3?
Weakness - An issue with research into the influence of attachment on later relationships and the role the internal working model must play in this is only correlational. Whilst an association has been found by many researchers indicating the quality of later relationships is heavily influenced by attachment type from infancy, this is does not determine causality. Fraley et al found that the correlations were not always strong positive ones either, with correlation coefficients ranging from +.10 to +.50. This means that correlational research in this area is not very reliable due to an unstable array of results.
Weakness - There are methodological issues with assessing attachment type retrospectively. Much research, such as the ‘Love Quiz’ by Hazan and Shaver rely upon self-report from adult participants about their memories from infancy and childhood. Recollection from years gone by are likely to be impaired and any answers provided may lack accuracy due to deterioration which lowers the internal validity of findings. This problem is further compounded by the possibility that individuals may not report honestly or even have an insight into their own template of expectations since the internal working model in an unconscious framework.
Weakness (issue and debate) - Bowlby’s theory puts forward a general theory of how early attachments affect later relationships; however, such early experiences are not universal and a negative experience for one infant might have very different outcomes to the negative experiences of another infant. Such considerations suggest that an idiographic approach, especially within these sensitive topics, might be more appropriate.
What to write for “Outline and evaluate research into the effects of failure to form attachment”? - (Maybes make an essay for this if you have time?).
AO1:
- Rutter’s study of Romanian orphans adopted by British families.
- Bowlby’s research or Skodak & Skeels.
- Animal research, such as that of Harlow’s monkeys, is creditworthy as long as it refers to the effects of failure to form attachment.
- Credit reference to effects on adult relationships.
AO3:
- Students may evaluate research into effects in terms of methodology, eg strengths & weaknesses of case studies or longitudinal research.
- Commentary may refer to the fact that the effects may depend on a number of factors including age of the child and quality of later care.
- Practical implications such as how this research has influenced child care practice would also be relevant.
