attachment A03

Question 1

Caregiver-infant interactions in humans (AO3)

Answer 1

scientific, controlled procedure
- Ev - used a slow-motion camera, dummy in a mouth, infant on mother’s lap and same facial
expressions shown.

• Ex - ensures accuracy of babies’ facial expression, e.g., dummy in mouth eliminates unwanted expressions. Therefore, certain babies were mirroring strangers’ facial expression and innate behaviour as only 3 days.
• L - But, lacks EV-set in unfamiliar environment, may
  not act that way in own homes, in a
  real-life setting e.g., may pay less
  attention to caregivers face due to
  toys etc. Therefore, in real life
  interactional synchrony not shown
  when forming attachment.

_Unscientific as making inferences _
- Ev - cannot ask infants why they arebehaving as they are. Therefore, making an inference that the mirroring of the facial expression is related to attachment.

• Ex - unclear whether beh observed is merely imitation of adult signals in order to learn motor movement and develop facial expressions for communication
  or whether it is specific formation of
  attachment behaviour. Particularly as it was a stranger, they were
  mirroring (hence not attachment to
  their caregiver).
• L - However, many studies have observed interactions between
  mothers and infants and found the
  same pattern of interaction.

cultural bias
- Ev - Kenyan mothers have little physical interactions or physical contact with their infants; however, the infants go on to have secure attachments.

• Ex - So, interactional
  synchrony is not shown universally
  across the world. This implies that
  interactional synchrony is not a necessary caregiver-infant interaction to form secure
  attachments.
• L - But, the study is only comparing to one emic study in
  Kenya. It may be possible that
  interactional synchrony is
  demonstrated across most other
  cultures. Therefore, we cannot reject Meltzoff & Moore’s conclusions outright.

Question 2

Stages of Attachment
Key Study: Schaffer & Emerson (AO3)

Answer 2

Highly scientific and controlled
- Ev - Controlled observation, clear beh categories (e.g. crying for signs of anxiety); structured interview used and the same procedure to test separation and stranger anxiety.
Triangulation of methods to reduce social desirability.

• Ex - Therefore, strong causal
  explanation – develop the attachment behaviours as infants
  age. Implies attachment is biologically innate.
• L - but large sample bias (P)

large sample bias
- Ev - Schaffer & Emerson used 60 middle-class infants from
Glasgow.

• Ex - Therefore, the behaviours indicative of developing
  attachment may just be particularly to parents from middle class, Scottish background. Therefore not
  possible to extrapolate to different collectivist cultures, or to other classes of parents, e.g., working class.
• L =P

ethical issues
- Ev - The infants were put under mild stress during the
observations and infants were
unable to directly give informed
consent.

• Ex - means the infants may have been affected by the stress within the study, affecting
  their future development.
  Secondly, they may regret taking
  part in the study, once an adult.
• L -However, there was parental consent and the parents had a right to withdraw their children, it they felt the stress was too high. Moreover, the stress was only mild.

Question 3

fathers role in attachment A03

Answer 3

Research showing fathers important in attachment
- Ev - Grossman - Father fulfils a different role from the mother - encourages adventurous, risk taking behaviour which is important in developing self-esteem and confidence in the child through playing.

• Ex - Therefore just as important than mother.
• L - However, Bowlby would argue that the mother = monotropy figure that creates the secure base for child to explore from and feel safe to take risks. This is seen in research showing mothers = responsible for emotionally developing their children, more than fathers.

father has role when main caregiver/single parent
- Ev - Father has adopted nurturing beh usually assigned to traditional maternal roles.

• Ex - Goes against culturally driven standards, Western societies = traditionally mother that raises.
• L - However, not case across world. many cultures, e.g. Sweden = equal patently roles and mat/pat rights in workplace. So fathers can emotionally develop children as well as mothers. Society pushes stereotype of fathers lacking ability to nurture, impacting women’s rights to work, and fathers for paternity pay.
  Would close gender pay gap in society and benefit society collectively.

not main attachment figure
- Ev - Schaffer and Emerson - 65% attachment was with mother, 3% with father.

• Ex - Fathers have little role in attachment, particular when child = infant. Mother has created secure attachment with a strong internal working model of how child can trust others and be loveable.
• L - But schaffer + Emerson found 75% formed attachment with father after 18 months of age. So father important in emotional dev of child during infancy.

-L - but father could be considered secondary attachment figure, not primary, which child relies on for secure base. Further supported by fact fathers seem less important in adolescent development than mothers which is particularly time for emotional regulation due to puberty. Reinforces importance of mothers in emotional dev.

-L - but this could be socially sensitive/sexist. Undermines need for fathers to be part of children’s lives, increases taboo of providing emotional caregiving interactions in fear of being judged/deemed beh inappropriate. Cuz of gynocenturc nature of research, highlighting women superiority in children’s upbringing (Bowbly). Important to centre research on roles of both, rather than just mother to balance out cultural expectations.

Question 4

Animal Studies: Lorenz (AO3)

Answer 4

Lorenz’s study had a
strong causal explanation of how
attachment forms
- Ev -standardised procedure in the incubation, only difference is whether hatched to biological goose or Lorenz.

• Ex - Therefore, can be certain goslings imprint to the first thing they see within a fixed critical period of 24hrs. This implies that human infants also imprint to their caregivers upon birth – attachment is biological.
• L - However, it could be argued that this was an artificial situation for the goslings to be hatched in, and that this may be particular only to Lorenz’s study and the goslings within it.

However, further research
support for imprinting
- Ev - Leghorn chicks were exposed to a yellow rubber gloves from birth. They become imprinted
on the gloves and male chicks later tried to mate with it.

• Ex - Therefore, imprinting is not particular to goslings but also explains how attachment develops through imprinting in other precocial species. This lends credibility to imprinting being linked to attachment.
• L - However, animal studies cannot be generalised to humans. Goslings and leghorn chicks are precocial - born mobile & self-sufficient unlike humans who are altricial , under-developed & require more caregiver interaction to survive. Therefore, goslings/chicks may need to imprint within critical period for survival.

However, Lorenz was incorrect to suppose that imprinting that permanent
- Ev - Lorenz believed that imprinting was irreversible and ‘stamped’ on the nervous system permanently when an object was encountered. However, in fact imprinting is ‘plastic’. When the leghorn chicks were encouraged to spend time with other leghorn chicks, they engaged in normal mating behaviour again.

• Ex - Therefore, Lorenz may not have given the goslings enough time to ‘mix’ with their own species to reverse imprinting. Therefore, there is no as ‘fixed’ and biological a critical period as Lorenz assumed.
• L -This has real life implications- immediate contact with the caregiver is key to attachment. For example, hospital policy changed to immediate skin to skin contact upon birth.

-L - but this could be considered highly socially sensitive + sexist. Undermines need for fathers to be part of childrens lives and possibly increases taboo of providing emotional caregiving interactions in fear of being judged/ deemed beh inappropriate. This is because of the gynocentric nature of the research, highlighting the superiority of women in childrens upbringing over fathers (Bowlby, Ainsworth). Important to focus research on roles of both fathers and mothers rather than just mothers to balance out our cultural expectations.

Question 5

Animal Studies: Harlow’s Monkeys (AO3)

Answer 5

Strength – Harlow’s study had a
strong causal explanation of how
attachment forms
- Ev - all the same environment, e.g. cage with cloth or wire monkeys. All taken away at birth (privation).

• Ex - So, can state that the cloth monkey was more important in creating a secure base than the wire monkey. Hence comfort is more important in attachment than food.
• L - However, small sample size (8). Hard to generalise to all mammals as could be unique factors with those particular rhesus
  monkeys. On the other hand they are evolutionary closer to humans than goslings or leghorn chicks – more generalisable to humans. Also supported by fact that monkeys demonstrated a disinhibited attachment – same as Romanian orphans with privation.

However, not generalisable to
human attachment
- Ev - Rhesus monkeys are evolutionary further away from humans than other primates.

• Ex - Rhesus moneys have not developed language, unlike humans. Therefore, there may be more importance placed on comfort
  than with a human. The critical period for human attachment seems to coincide with language development. Therefore, the
  development of language to communicate feelings may be more important that actual skin to skin contact & comfort.
• L - However, both rhesus monkeys and humans are altricial and are underdeveloped when born. Hence, they may have far more similarities as species than precocial species such as goslings or
  chicks. Hence, this is a better comparison that Lorenz’s study of animal attachment.

However, Harlow was criticised
for assuming the cloth monkey
was preferred due to comfort
- Ev -Critics argued that the monkeys chose the cloth monkey for warmth rather than a secure base/comfort.

• Ex -Therefore, Harlow’s study was not accurately testing attachment behaviour as the rhesus monkeys were in an artificially
  simplistic environment.
• L -However, Harlow argued this criticism was invalid, as the floor of the cage was heated. If it was warmth they would have laid on the floor, not the cloth monkey. Hence attachment is about comfort over
  food.

Question 6

Explanations of Attachment: Learning Theory (AO3)

Answer 6

Criticism – lack of research support
- Ev -Evidence of CC is from Pavlov’s dogs.

• Ex - This research is not related at all to attachment. Therefore cannot say humans attach because of associating food with their mother. It ignores the role of emotions and language.
• L = P

However, reductionist to assume all attach is due to cupboard love
- Ev - Harlow proved that monkeys prefer comfort over food. If learning theory was correct monkeys should have preferred the wire monkey with the bottle to the cloth monkey.

• Ex - Therefore, learning theory is a poor explanation of attachment. It is too simplistic to think we only attach because of who feeds us. Implication = if LT correct then parents only need to feed their
  children. (E.g. Genie). However, it would be neglect to not provide emotional support (comfort) and
  social interactions. Therefore, humans need more than food.
• L = P

On the other hand, it does
explain how we form multiple
attachments
- Ev - We can attach to whoever feeds us (e.g. grandparents, mother and father)

• Ex -Therefore, it explains how attachments are formed with multiple caregivers, maternal and
  paternal figures. Unlike Bowlby’s Monotrophic theory which assumes that the maternal caregiver is the most important rather than fathers.

-L- However, LT assumes that attachment is environmental - ignores the role of evolution. If all
mammals have a need to attach it suggests a universal and biological explanation. Undermines LT.

Question 7

Explanations of Attachment:
Bowlby’s Monotrophic Theory (AO3)

Answer 7

_ strength- research support
for innate & the critical period_
- Ev - Lorenz – gosling imprinted within fixed critical period.

• Ex - This supports the idea that attachment is innate and has evolved to survive.
• L - However, Lorenz proved
  a critical period with precocial animals. Bowlby suggested a more sensitive period 0-18 months as
  humans are altricial and have more gradual development.

strength- - Research support
for the monotrophy figure
- Ev - Schaffer & Emerson – by 7 months old formed their main specific attachment to 1 caregiver.
65% was the mother.

• Ex - This supports Bowlby’s theory that it’s the first attachment with one main caregiver that is the most important in developing the
  internal working model, a template for adulthood and future relationships.
• L - However, Schaffer & Emerson also said that 10-11 months, multiple attachments are formed, which criticises Bowlby’s theory. Though, Bowlby accepts multiple attachments but that they are not important in developing the secure attachment for future healthy relationships.

strength- support for continuity hypothesis
- Ev - Hazan & Shaver – love quiz. Positive correlation between childhood attachment and adulthood attachment.

• Ex - Proves that our attachment type continues into adulthood and effects future relationships (as stated in the internal working model) as secure attachments are more likely to have long lasting relationships, insecure are more likely to divorce and have mental health issues.
• L -However, this evidence is self-report and retrospective, assumes that people can accurately recall their childhood. Secondly, it is hard determinism. It means that
  attachment cannot change will
  cause mental health issues,
  unhappy relationships. So does
  attachment really determine such causality?

Question 8

Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ (AO3)

Answer 8

Strength – highly controlled
observation & high inter-rater
reliability
- Ev -Camera, procedure of comings and goings, same room & materials, objective measure of proximity (9x9 grid).

• Ex - Strong causality: can show that there are 3 types of attachment, and multiple studies have found similar results (e.g. 18 studies from USA in VIK cultural variations study). Also strong inter-observer reliability (0.93) due to
  behavioural categories being
  operationalised.
• L - However, there was a lack of EV. Setting was fake, and
  unfamiliar to the infants and parents. The children may have acted diff within their own homes.
  However, Ainsworth’s study would have lack scientificness in a natural
  observational study.

Criticism – strange situation is
unethical
- Ev -The infants were put under mild stress, through separation and stranger anxiety.

• Ex - Infants were distressed and some were unable to be soothed. This was evident in Takahashi’s study in Japan, where the parents withdraw their infants from the study due to the level of
  distress seen.
• L - However, Ainsworth argued that the stress caused was ‘mild’ and that it was similar to what infants would experience in their everyday lives. This may be true of individualistic cultures, however in collectivist cultures like Japan, where the parents never separate from their children the distress was not
  an everyday experience. Therefore, she has an imposed etic in the design of her study.

Strength – provided support
for Bowlby’s monotrophy theory
- Ev - Evidence for securely attached children having a secure base, and therefore willing to explore, being the most healthy and having an internal working model of trusting others and feeling loved.

• Ex - Therefore, attachment has evolved as Bowlby suggested to ensure successful future relationships in order to pass on their genes successfully, through secure attachments.
• L - However, Ainsworth had a gender bias (beta bias). Her sample was only of mothers, it ignored the role of the father or of other caregivers that may be the main attachment (e.g. grandparents).
  She then generalised to all caregivers, minimising the differences. To remove this gender issue, she needed to use both fathers and mothers in her sample.

Question 9

Cultural Variations in Attachment (AO3)

Answer 9

There is universality in
attachment (no cultural variations) in secure attachments
- Ev - VIK found secure attachments were the highest % across all 8 countries (ranged from 50-75% - similar to Ainsworth’s 66%)

• Ex - Secure attachments are universal and hence innate = most common. Ainsworth’s Strange Situation can be generalised across world .
• L - However, imposed etic – method was western (e.g. assumption of separation from caregiver). This is not the case in
  collectivist cultures.

There are cultural variations
between cultures in insecure
attachments
- Ev - Ainsworth assumed insecure avoidant (IA) was the most common insecure attachment, and insecure resistant (IR) least common. However, individualistic
most common = IA; whereas collectivist = IR (Japan 27% - similar to Ainsworth’s IA rate of 22%)

• Ex - Therefore, SS does not accurately measure insecure attachment types universally due to the imposed etic. E.g., in Japan parents never separate, therefore
  SS made children appear IR (whereas it was actually just a novel situation that they had never before experienced).
• L - Further, criticism is it supports the idea that Ainsworth’s SS is unethical to apply to collectivist cultures, as the amount of distress caused in Takahashi’s study meant parents withdraw infants.

However, there were also within
cultural variations in insecure
attachments in individualistic
cultures
- Ev -Germany = high IA 35%, compared to range of 21-26% in all other individualist cultures.
- Ex - Therefore, IA attachments are not the same even within the same culture, e.g., as
West Germany encourage and celebrate independence within their culture.
Whereas, Ainsworth’s SS assumes to be independent from parents is unhealthy. Imposing a US perspective.
- L - Therefore, the SS does have cultural biases. They should have used indigenous researchers within the cultures to design a method to measure attachment, to
ensure a derived rather than imposed etic.

Question 10

Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation
(AO3)

Answer 10

Criticism – the studies methodology is correlational, self report and retrospective bias
- Ev - it was based on self-report from parents and the adolescent, and was correlational. It looked back at the adolescents children from self reports from the parents.

• Ex - This is open to social desirability from the parents, and inaccurate memory of events.
  Furthermore, cannot say that maternal deprivation causes psychopathy as it is only correlational. Could be many other factors, e.g. poverty, poor educational achievement, criminality within the family (SLT).
• L - However, it would not be possible for Bowlby to study experimentally as it would be unethical to create maternal deprivation. However, he could have created a longitudinal study looking at all those with maternal deprivation to see who had psychopathy, rather than retrospectively looking at “psychopaths” to see if they had maternal deprivation. There are many people with maternal deprivation are upstanding members of the community.

Strength – research support for effects of maternal deprivation
- Ev - Harlow’s monkeys: they had socialisation difficulties, e.g. aggression & difficulties interacting with others.

• Ev - Rutter: children in institutions have a lower IQ, more mental health problems and showed aggressive behaviour.
• Ex - Therefore, it is important that there is not a disruption of attachment from the monotrophy
  figure in the child’s early years. This has implications for policies of the custodial sentencing of female offenders with infants.

-L- However, Rutter accused Bowlby of assuming deprivation and privation are the same. In fact, the effects of maternal deprivation can be reversed, unlike privation where never having an attachment as more long term effects. Therefore,
Bowlby have been measuring privation rather than maternal deprivation.

Criticism – social sensitivity of the research findings
- Ev - Bowlby states that the role of the maternal figure is the most important for preventing psychopathy, and anti-social Beh.

• Ex - blames women for the criminal behaviour of their children. This removes any personal responsibility on behalf of the offender, and puts large responsibility onto women for IQ, mental health and anti-social beh difficulties. Creates guilt for those
  working women; implies that women should remain at home for the first 18 months & up to 5 years of age; but minimises the role for men.
• L -However, there is evidence to show that mothers who are happy at work, create better
  child develop than those frustrated by staying at home. Therefore, maybe Bowlby lacks temporal
  validity and the theory represents a time period when the majority of women stayed at home and little appreciation of cultural differences across the world (e.g. not every child is brought up by the biological mother)

Question 11

Romanian Orphans Study: Effects of
Institutionalisation (AO3)

Answer 11

Research support - Institutionalised has long term effects
- Ev - Hodges & Tizard – 65 UK children in an institution. By age 16, all children in institution had disinhibited attachment problems with peers, considered bullies and sought attention from adults.

• Ex - Privation = long term effects on ability to form peer relationships, low IQ
• L - However, both Rutter and H&T had a sample bias. Romanian adopted in UK and UK adopted. May just be factors relevant to the cultures of these cultures and attitudes towards learning disabilities and adoption.

Criticism – assumes long term effects are permanent but they can be reversed
- Ev - Czech Twins – raised in extreme isolation when mother dies in childbirth (like Genie). 7 years locked up by stepmother. They had no language ability and physically stunted.

• Ex - It was assumed the effect was permanent, however when placed with their aunts by age 14yrs had near normal social and intellectual functioning, 20yrs were above intelligence and excellent relationships with others. Therefore, not permanent effects of privation.
• L - However, the twins had each other, and had formed attachments with aunts before being taken by father and stop mother. Hence, could be more maternal deprivation than privation.

Criticism – quasi lack of
causality
- Ev - Privation is not the only factor; the IV was not manipulated (as it is unethical to create privation for research purposes).

• Ex - There are other factors that could cause long term effects, e.g. the reasons for the institutionalisation (e.g. learning
  disabilities/brain damage; neglect or
  abuse). Therefore reductionist to
  consider only due to institutionalisation.
• L - However, real life implications - change the policies on adoption in the UK and throughout the world, e.g. adopting before 2 years of age, as effects of privation can be reversed.

Question 12

The influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships: Hazan and Shaver (AO3)

Answer 12

Strength – research support for the continuity hypothesis
- Ev - Hazan & Shaver (Love experience and attitudes towards love (internal working model) were related to attachment type)

• Ex - Therefore, supports the view that our early childhood attachment continues into adulthood and shapes our future relationships.
• L - However, there are methodological problems, as it is correlational – lack of causation, self-report – social desirability and retrospective – inaccurate memory recall.

Criticism – not all research
has found the same positive
correlations
- Ev - reviewed 27 samples were infants were assessed in infancy and later reassessed (1 month to 20 years later). They found correlation coefficients (0.1- 0.5) between early childhood and adulthood attachments.

• Ex - Therefore, criticises Bowlby as in fact early childhood attachment does not strongly correlate with adulthood attachment. Hence, our early infancy does not determine our adulthood and future relationship success.
• L = P

However, real life evidence for long term effects of early attachment that can be reversed into adulthood
- Ev - Rutter (if <6 months for adoption, low IQ and DA reversed) & Czech Twins (when adopted age 7yrs, by 20yrs = above average IQ)

• Ex - Therefore, our early attachment does not determine the long term effects into adulthood, e.g. can be reversed through
  improved attachment figures in our
  lives, e.g. adoptive parents.
• L - Therefore, people can change their future relationships, it is not determined that people will continue to repeat failed relationships and have more divorces, as Hazan & Shaver supposed. We can learn from our past experiences, and change our attachment type throughout our life.