Attatchment Flashcards
What is attachment?
An attachment is a close two-way emotional bond between two individuals where each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security. It endures over time and serves to protect the infant.
Define proximity
People try to stay physically close to those they are attached to
Define separation anxiety
People are distressed when an attachment figure leaves their presence
Define stranger anxiety
The infant is distressed when in close proximity to strangers / people they don’t know
Define reunion behaviour
The infant shows pleasure when reunited with the attachment figure.
What problems do researchers face when conducting attachment research?
Infants have little control, over their movements when they are that immature and their bodies are almost immobile when they are very small. The movements are just small hand/limb movements or facial expressions. Also difficult to determine what is going on in the baby’s mind. Therefore we cannot be certain that the behaviours seen in care-giver infant interactions have a special meaning.
What are caregiver-infant interactions, and why are they important?
Caregiver-infant interactions refers to the communication between a caregiver and infant. It is believed that these interactions have important functions for the child’s social development and form the basis of the attachment between the two. Particularly, the more responsive or sensitive they are to each other’s signals, the deeper the bond.
Give the technical definition of reciprocity.
Reciprocity is a caregiver-infant interaction. It is a two-way or mutual process - each party responds to the other’s signals to sustain (continue) the interaction (turn-taking). An interaction is reciprocal when each person responds to the other and the behaviour of each party elicits a response from the other. Both the caregiver and infant can initiate interactions.
Explain why reciprocity is important for the infant.
Lays the foundation for later attachment and communications
Give the technical definition of interactional synchrony.
Interactional synchrony is when a caregiver and infant reflect the actions and emotions of the other in a coordinated (synchronised) way. They mirror each other in terms of their facial and body movements.
Explain two ways in which interactional synchrony is important for the infant.
For them to begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling which is fundamental for social relationships.
Important for the development of mother-infant attachments
How is reciprocity different to interactional synchrony?
In reciprocity the responses aren’t necessarily similar.
Describe Meltzoff and Moore’s procedure and results (study of interactional synchrony)
Observed I.S in infants as young as 2 weeks. An adult display one of three facial expressions - inants response filmed and identifed by independent observers (couldn’t see adult showing facial expression). Behaviour is innate (3 day babies) and intentional.
Meltzoff suggested that through interactional synchrony, infants begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling which is fundamental for social relationships.
What did Isabella et al. (1989) find about interactional synchrony?
Isabella et al. (1989) observed 30 mothers and infants together and assessed the degree of synchrony. They found high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality of mother-infant attachment.
Studies of caregiver-infant interactions are generally well-controlled. How? Why is this important?
Observations of mother-infant interactions are generally well-controlled procedures, with both the mother and infant being filmed, often from multiple angles. The angles often include those that mean that the researcher analysing the video footage cannot see what the other person in the video is doing. Additionally, babies don’t know or care that they are being observed.
As babies don’t know or care that they are being observed, this reduces the likelihood of demand characteristics and social desirability bias which are normally a problem for observational research. Recording the interactions ensures that fine details can be recorded and later analysed. As angles can be used where the caregiver can’t be seen, this reduces the likelihood of researcher bias. Together, this ensures that the research has good internal validity and so we can make valid conclusions about the importance of caregiver-infant interactions. It also means that the research can be replicated to check reliability of the results.
Counterargument: it is difficult to study infants’ behaviour because their mouths are in fairly constant motion. The expressions being tested in research (e.g. tongue sticking out, yawning, smiling) occur frequently. This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours. As such, we can’t be certain that the interactions are deliberate and so have a special meaning.
Why can’t we be certain that caregiver-infant interactions have a special meaning?
Ignore
Feldman points out that interactional synchrony and reciprocity simply describe behaviours that occur at the same time. They are robust phenomena that can be reliably observed, but this may not be particularly useful as it doesn’t tell us their purpose (why they are done).
Therefore, we can’t understand why infants reciprocate and imitate their caregivers, so we can’t be certain that they have a special meaning.
Counterargument: there is evidence that reciprocity and interactional synchrony are helpful in the development of mother-infant attachment, as well as stress responses, empathy, language and moral development (e.g. Isabella et al.). Therefore, it seems that they may have a special meaning.
What evidence is there to suggest they do have a special meaning?
Meltzoff and Moore’s study along with Isabella et al.’s study support the importance of interactional synchrony in social development and attachment. This suggests that interactional synchrony may have a special meaning as it is important for the development of attachment and to help infants to begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling, which is fundamental for social relationships.
Pseudo-imitation is a problem for studies of caregiver-infant interactions. What is this and why is it a problem?
Ignore
Many studies involving observation of the interactions between mothers and infants have shown the same patterns of interaction (reciprocity and interactional synchrony). However, what is being observed is merely hand movements or changes in expression. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to know what is taking place from the infant’s perspective e.g. are they doing what they are doing deliberately? Other researchers have suggested that infants may instead be showing pseudo-imitation. This is the idea that the infant isn’t truly imitating the behaviour of the caregiver. Instead, they are repeating a behaviour that has been rewarded (the caregiver often smiles and laughs when they imitate). Therefore, the infant has not consciously translated what they see into a matching movement.
Consequently, we can’t conclude that we fully understand the meaning of caregiver-infant interactions and we can’t know for certain that they have a special meaning.
Counterargument: Abravanel and DeYong (1991) observed infant behaviour when ‘interacting’ with two objects, one simulating tongue movements and the other mouth opening/closing. They found that the infants made little response to the objects. This suggests that infants don’t imitate everything they see; it is a specific social response to other humans. Therefore, the interactions may have a special meaning.
How can research on caregiver-infant interactions be considered socially sensitive?
Research into mother-infant interaction is socially sensitive because it suggests that children may be disadvantaged by particular child-rearing practices. In particular, mothers who return to work shortly after a child is born restricts the opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony which has been found to be important in developing caregiver-infant attachment. This suggests that mothers should not return to work so soon and as such has socially sensitive implications. It could create guilt in mothers who need to return to work soon after the birth of their child. However, the research is important in that it suggests that the interactions have a special meaning and may have implications later on in life. These two opposing viewpoints need to be carefully considered when conducting and publishing such research.
What is Schaffer’s stages of attachment?
Some psychologists have suggested that attachment isn’t as straightforward as it’s not there and then it suddenly is. They said that it actually develops in stages or steps. This is Schaffer’s stages of attachment. They are a description of how attachment develops that Schaffer developed from his research with Emerson.
What is the asocial stage?
The first stage is called the asocial stage, which isn’t really an asocial stage even though Schaffer and Emerson used that term. Babies in the first few weeks of life are said to be in this stage. During this stage the baby recognises and starts to form a bond with its carers. However, the baby’s behaviour towards non-human objects and humans is quite similar. Babies show some preference for familiar adults, in that those individuals find it easier to calm them. Babies are also happier when in the presence of other humans. During this stage, reciprocity and interactional synchrony play a role in establishing the infant’s relationship with others.
What is the indiscriminate attachment stage?
From 2-7 months babies display more observable social behaviour. They show a preference for people rather than inanimate objects and recognise and prefer familiar adults. They can distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar people. At this stage babies usually accept cuddles and comfort from any adult, and they do not usually show separation or stranger anxiety. Their attachment behaviour is therefore said to be indiscriminate because it is not different towards any one person, which is where the name of the stage came from.
What is the specific attachment stage?
The third stage is called ‘specific attachment’ and occurs from 7 months. The majority of babies start to display anxiety towards strangers and to become anxious when separated from one particular adult (the biological mother in 65% of cases). Equally, they show especial joy at reunion with that particular adult and are most comforted by them. At this point the baby is said to have formed a specific attachment. This adult is termed the primary attachment figure. This person is not necessarily the person the child spends most time with them, but the one who offers the most interaction and responds to the baby’s ‘signals’ with the most skill.
What is the multiple attachments stage?
The final stage is known as ‘multiple attachments’. Shortly after babies start to show attachment behaviour towards one adult, they usually extend this attachment behaviour to multiple attachments with other adults with whom they regularly spend time. These relationships are called secondary attachments. In Schaffer and Emerson’s study, 29% of the children had secondary attachments within a month of forming a primary (specific) attachment. By the age of 1 year the majority of infants had developed multiple attachments.
What is the problem with studying the asocial stage?
Ignore
The first stage of attachment is called the ‘asocial’ stage, but many important interactions take place in these weeks. The problem is that babies that are young have poor coordination and are generally pretty much immobile. It is therefore very difficult to make any judgements about them based on observations of their behaviour. There just isn’t much observable behaviour. This does not mean that the child’s feelings and cognitions are not highly social. It just means that the research evidence can’t be relied upon and so may not provide as strong support for the theory as previously thought. As such, from the research, it is difficult to strongly support the validity of the stages of attachment theory.
The theory is considered to be inflexible. How? Why is this a problem?
One difficulty with stage theories is that they suggest that development is inflexible. In this case, it suggests that normally specific attachments come before multiple attachments. In some situations and cultures, multiple attachments may come first. This is a problem because the stages become a standard by which families are judged and may then be classed as abnormal. However, this is because the stage model tells us less about how attachments develop in other cultures and situations beyond those studied in Schaffer and Emerson’s study (i.e. The theory is not externally valid).
Why might the theory apply less to collectivist cultures? Why is this a problem?
Schaffer’s stages of attachment
Ignore
In collectivist cultures, people are more focused on the needs of the group rather than the individuals (unlike individualist cultures like ours). In such societies, we might expect multiple attachments to be more common. Research supports this. It has been found that the closeness of attachment with mothers was almost twice as common in family-based sleeping arrangements compared to communal environments. This suggests that the stage model applies specifically to individualist cultures and so lacks external validity. It may tell us less about how attachments develop in other cultures.
What is the problem researchers face when measuring multiple attachments? Why is this a problem for the theory?
There may be a problem with how multiple attachments are assessed. Just because a baby gets distressed when an individual leaves the room does not necessarily mean that the individual is a ‘true’ attachment figure. Children have playmates as well as attachment figures and may get distressed when they leave, but this does not signify attachment. This is a problem for the stages because their observation does not leave us a way to distinguish between behaviour towards secondary attachment figures and playmates. Consequently the results may not be validly measuring multiple attachments, and so cannot be taken as strong support for the validity of the theory.
Describe the procedure and results of Schaffer and Emerson’s (1964) study that led to the development of Schaffer’s stages of attachment
Procedure:
They used a sample of 60 babies from Glasgow, with the majority being from working-class families. Babies and mothers were studied every month for the first year and then again at 18 months. They used observations and interviews with the mothers. They assessed separation anxiety/protest; through the infant being left alone in a room, left in the pram outside the shops, left in the cot at night etc. They also assessed stranger anxiety with the researcher starting home visits by approaching the infant, to see if they got distressed.
Findings:
25-32 weeks about 50% of babies showed separation anxiety towards a particular adult (usually the mother), joy at reunion with that person and are most comforted by that person and begins to display stranger anxiety - signs that a specific attachment has been formed. Attachment tended to be to the caregiver who was most interactive and sensitive to the infants’ signals and facial expression (reciprocity). This wasn’t necessarily the person with whom the infant spent most time. In 65% of the children, the first specific attachment was to the mother, and in a further 30% the mother was the first joint object of attachment. Fathers were rarely the first sole object of attachment (3%) but 27% of them were the joint first object.
By 40 weeks 80% of babies had a specific attachment (to the primary caregiver) and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments e.g. father, grandparents etc. In 75% of the infants studied, an attachment was formed with the father by the age of 18 months. This was determined by the fact that the infants protested when their father walked away (separation anxiety)
Conclusion:
This suggests that there is a pattern of attachment common to all infants which is biologically controlled. Furthermore, attachments are more easily made with those who are sensitive, for example recognising and responding appropriately to an infant’s needs, rather than those spending the most time with a child. Primary attachments are more likely to be with the mother rather than the father. Fathers are more likely to be secondary attachment figures.
What stages of attachment does Schaffer and Emerson’s study support and how?
Ignore
Stages 3 and 4
50% of infants showed a specific attachment to a primary attachment figure between 25 and 32 weeks
By 40 weeks almost 30% displayed multiple attachments and in 75% of infants attachment formed to father by 18 months
How does Schaffer and Emerson’s study support the role of the father?
Shows they are likely to be secondary attachment figures
Explain one strength and one weakness of Schaffer and Emerson’s study.
Weakness: The sample was biased in a number of ways. All the families were from the same district and social class in the same city, at a time over 50 years ago. Child-rearing practices vary from one culture to another and one historical period to another. For instance, more women now go out to work so many children are cared for outside of the home, and more fathers choose to stay at home and care for their children. Therefore, the results of the study do not necessarily generalise well to other social and historical contexts and so may not tell us as much about how and when attachments develop today (i.e. Not strong support for the stages of attachment today). Counterargument: However, the sample size of 60 babies and their carers was good considering the large volume of data gathered on each participant. Therefore, the results may have some external validity and so tell us something about how and when attachments develop (stages of attachment).
Strength: The study was carried out longitudinally. This means that the same children were followed-up and observed regularly. This suggests that the results will be of a higher internal validity than a cross-sectional study would have been because they do not have the confounding variable of individual differences between participants (participant variables). Therefore, the conclusion about how and when attachments develop is valid and so is strong support for the stages of attachment theory.
What is the role of the father?
To be the main male caregiver
What do infants turn to mothers for?
To seek comfort and nurturing
What do infants turn to fathers for?
Play
Why might the role of the father be different to the role of the mother?
Fathers are more playful, physically active and generally better at providing challenging situations for their children.
Fathers excite children, encouraging them to take risks whilst still keeping them safe. This provides them with a secure environment to learn to be brave.
What evidence do we have that fathers are more likely to be secondary attachment figures?
Schaffer and Emerson - mothers typically PAF, but in 75% of those studied, attachments to father by 18 months.
Describe evidence that supports that fathers’ role as secondary attachment figures is important for an infant’s development.
Grossman’s study found that fathers as secondary attachment figures had an important role in their child’s development. They found that the quality of father’ play with infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments. This suggests that fathers have a different role in attachment - one that is more to do with play and stimulation, and less to do with nurturing.
Describe evidence that fathers can be primary attachment figures.
In Schaffer’s and Emerson’s study there was 3% of fathers that were that primary attachment figure and 27% of them were the joint first option
Why is it difficult to determine the role of fathers in attachment from research?
Ignore
Research into the role of fathers in attachment is confusing because researchers who study them ask different research questions. Some are interested in understanding the role of fathers as secondary attachment figures whereas others are more concerned with the father 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. These inconsistent findings are a problem because it means that psychologists cannot easily answer the seemingly straightforward question of: ‘what is the role of the father?’
What evidence is there to undermine that fathers play an important role as secondary attachment figures?
Other studies have found that children growing up in single-parent or same-sex parent households do not develop any differently from those in two-parent heterosexual families. This would seem to suggest that the father’s role as a secondary attachment figure is not important because those without fathers develop as well as those with fathers. Counterargument: however, the lines of research may be in conflict. It could be that fathers typically take on a distinctly separate role in two-parent heterosexual families, but that parents in single parent and same-sex parent families simply adapt to accommodate the role played by fathers. This means that fathers adopt a distinctive role when present, but families can adapt to not having a father.
Freeman et al. (2010) found that male children are more likely to prefer their father as an attachment figure than female children. How does tis undermine the theory?
Ignore
This could suggest that fathers do not play a significant role in their children’s lives. This could create distress for fathers and may even lead to reduced rights for fathers in legal proceedings and wider society.
How is research on role of the father socially sensitive?
The claim that children without fathers are no different from those with fathers suggests that the father’s role is secondary. This poses huge ethical issues as it is socially sensitive research. This could suggest that fathers do not play a significant role in their children’s lives. This could create distress for fathers and may even lead to reduced rights for fathers in legal proceedings and wider society.
How is knowing about the role of the father beneficial to the economy?
The research on role of the father can be used to offer advice to parents. Parents and prospective parents sometimes agonise over decisions like who should take the primary caregiver role. Mothers may feel pressured to stay home because of stereotypical views about the roles of mothers and fathers. Equally, fathers may feel pressured to focus on work rather than parenting. In some families, this is not the best economical decision. Therefore the research can offer reassuring advice to parents. For example, heterosexual parents can be informed that fathers are quite capable of becoming primary attachment figures (Field’s research). Also, same-sex parents and single-mother families can be informed that not having a father around does not affect their child’s development as they can take on the nurturing and play roles. This supports the external validity of the research because it can be used to reduce parental anxiety about the role of fathers.
What is imprinting?
Imprinting is an innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the mother, which takes place during a specific time in development (often the first few hours after birth/hatching). If it doesn’t happen at this time, it probably won’t happen i.e. there is a critical period. It is irreversible and long-lasting.
Describe Lorenz’s procedure and results.
Procedure: Lorenz (1952) first observed the phenomenon of imprinting when he was a child and a neighbour gave him a newly hatched duckling that then followed him around. As an adult researcher Lorenz set up a classic experiment in which he randomly divided a large clutch of goose eggs. Half the eggs were hatched with the mother goose in their natural enviroment. The other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz.
Results: The incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere wheras the control group, hatched in the presence of their mother, followed her. When the two groups were mixed up the control group contiuned to follow the mother and the experimental group followed Lorenz. This phenomenon is called imprinting - whereby bird species that are mobile from birth (like geese and ducks) attach to and follow the first moving object they see. Lorenz identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place. Depending on the species this can be as brief as a few hours after birth. If imprinting does not occur within that time Lorenz found that chicks did not attatch themselves to a mother figure.
What conclusions can we draw from Lorenz’s study about human attachment?
Babies do not imprint instantly like birds, but the same concepts and importance of attachment holds true.
Bowlby developed a theory of attachment which suggests there is a critical period for developing an attachment in humans (about 2 years). If an attachment has not developed during this period, then the child will suffer from irreversible developmental consequences e.g. reduced intelligence and increased aggression.
Why are Lorenz’s results about attachment unlikely to generalise to humans?
The mammalian attachment system seems to be quite different from that in birds e.g. mammalian mothers show more emotional attachment to young than birds do [you need to add examples here from L1 about humans showing reciprocity and interactional synchrony], and mammals may be able to form attachments at any time (although less easily than during infancy). This means that it may not be appropriate to try to generalise any of Lorenz’s ideas to humans. As such, Lorenz’s study may have low external validity and may not tell us as much about human attachment as we may have previously thought. For instance, it may be that the consequences for missing the critical period of attachment are not as severe (or more severe) in humans compared to the animals in Lorenz’s study.
How does the study of chickens both support and undermine Lorenz’s results (and therefore conclusions about human attachment)?
Research has found that chickens exposed to yellow rubber gloves for feeding them during the first few weeks became imprinted on the gloves and would try to mate with them as adults. This supports the idea that young animals imprint on any moving thing that is present during the critical period of development and so suggests that his results have some external validity to other birds. Therefore, the inferences we can draw about humans from Lorenz’s study about humans having a critical period for attachment may have some validity.
The same research (as the second row) found that with experience, the chickens eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens. This suggests that the impact of imprinting on mating behaviour is not as permanent or irreversible as Lorenz believed, suggesting his conclusion lacks validity. Therefore, the same may be true for humans; if an attachment doesn’t develop during the critical period, the developmental consequences may not be irreversible.
Lorenz had a control group. Why is this important?
Lorenz had a control group where the eggs were hatched with the mother goose and an experimental group where they were hatched with him. This enabled Lorenz to establish cause and effect between the first moving object that the goslings see and who they imprint on. Therefore we can be more confident that his conclusions about how imprinting occurs on the first moving object that the goslings see is universal and occurs regardless of the species of the first moving object seen by the infant animal. Therefore, we can be more confident in the inferences we draw from the study about human attachment occurring during a critical period.
Describe Harlow’s procedure and results.
Procedure: Harlow (1958) tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother. In one experience he reared 16 baby monkeys with two wire model ‘mothers.’ In one condition milk was dispensed by the plain-wire mother whereas in a second condition the milk was dispensed by the cloth-covered mother.
Findings: The baby monkeys cuddled the cloth-covered mother in preference to the plain-wire mother and sought comfort from the cloth mother when frightened (e.g. by a noisy mechanical teddy bear) regardless of which mother dispensed milk. This showed that ‘contact comfort’ was of more importance to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour.
What were the long-lasting effects on the monkeys in Harlow’s study?
Harlow continued to study the monkeys who had been deprived of a real mother into adulthood to see if this early maternal deprivation had a permanent effect. He reported that the motherless monkeys, even those who did have contact comfort, developed abnormally. They were socially abnormal (froze or fled when approached by other monkeys, were more aggressive and less sociable), and sexually abnormal (they did not show normal mating behaviour as they mated less than other monkeys and were unskilled at mating). Some of the deprived monkeys also neglected their young, and others attacked their children, even killing them in some cases.
What conclusions can we draw from Harlow’s study about human attachment?
Harlow’s findings have had a massive impact on psychologists’ understanding of human mother-infant attachment. Harlow showed that attachment doesn’t develop as a result of being fed by a mother figure, but as a result of contact comfort. Harlow also showed us the importance of the quality of early relationships for later social development, including the ability to hold down adult relationships and successfully rear children. * Attachment – attachment doesn’t develop as a result of feeding but as a result of contact comfort from mother figure. It supports the critical period for attachment formation (about 2 years in humans) – a mother figure had to be introduced in the first 90 days for an attachment to form in the monkeys. After this time, attachment was impossible and the damage from the early deprivation became irreversible. Therefore, the same may be likely in humans if an attachment is not formed within the critical period. This emphasises the importance of sensitive caregiving of an infant’s life. It also supports the importance of the quality of early relationships for later social development e.g. If an infant does not form an attachment during the critical period (low quality early relationships), then this will impact their social development later on (less successful adult relationships and won’t successfully rear children). Whereas if an infant forms a high quality relationship with their primary attachment figure during the critical period (high quality early relationship), this will impact their social development later on (can hold down adult relationships and successfully rear children). This supports the external validity of Harlow’s conclusions as they can be applied to species beyond monkeys to have a profound effect on mother-infant attachment, suggesting that they tell us something important about human attachment.
What real-world applications does Harlow’s study have for humans?
The insight into attachment from the research has had important applications in numerous contexts. For example, it has helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse, and so intervene to prevent it. The research is also important for the care of captive monkeys – we now understand the importance of proper attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos, and in breeding programmes in the wild. This supports the external validity of Harlow’s conclusions as they can be applied to different practical settings to improve the quality of life for human infants.
Harlow’s study has been criticised for being unethical. How? What does this tell us about his conclusions about human attachment?
The study has been criticised for its ethical issues. The monkeys suffered greatly as a result of the procedures [you would need to add a specific example of how here]. As the animals are quite similar to humans, the suffering is presumably quite human-like. Harlow himself was aware of the suffering he caused. These criticisms don’t challenge the findings of the research, but are important in monitoring what counts as good science. Counterargument: cost-benefit analysis - costs to the monkeys may be outweighed by the benefits of what we have learned (using the top two rows of the table).
Harlow’s study had a confounding variable. What was it and why is this a problem?
The two ‘mothers’ differed in other ways, other than being cloth-covered or not. The two heads were very different and so act as a confounding variable. It is not possible to determine whether the infants preferred the cloth-covered ‘mother’ because it was cloth-covered or because it had a more attractive head. Therefore the results lack internal validity as we can’t determine cause and effect so we can’t be entirely confident in Harlow’s conclusion about the importance of contact comfort in the formation of attachment in monkeys, and by extension humans.
According to the learning theory of attachment, who do infants attach to and why?
In terms of attachment, this is sometimes called a ‘cupboard love’ approach because it suggests that children learn to love (attach to) whoever feeds them. Therefore according to this theory, food is important in the formation of attachment.
The attachment is thought to be formed through classical conditioning. Explain how using the key terms of classical conditioning.
Before conditioning:
Food (UCS) –> baby feels pleasure (UCR)
Mother (NS) –> baby doesn’t respond
During conditioning:
Mother (NS) + food (UCS) –> baby feels pleasure (UCR)
After conditioning:
Mother (CS) –> baby feels pleasure (CR)
The attachment is thought to be strengthened through operant conditioning. Explain how using the key terms of operant conditioning.
Positive reinforcement – this increases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated because it involves a reward for the behaviour. This can explain why infants cry for comfort, an important behaviour in building attachment. Crying leads to a response from the caregiver e.g. feeding. As long as the caregiver provides the correct response, the reward reinforces the action so the infant repeats it, and cries again.
Negative reinforcement - this increases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated because it involves the removal of, or escape from, unpleasant consequences. When the infant is fed, the crying stops. The caregiver is therefore escaping from the unpleasant crying. This reinforces the action so the mother repeats it and feeds the infant when they cry.
This interplay of reinforcement strengthens the attachment.
Explain how drive reduction plays a role in the formation of the attachment.
Dollard and Miller argued that a hungry infant feels discomfort, creating a drive (hunger) to reduce this feeling.
When an infant is fed, the drive of hunger is reduced, which produces a feeling of pleasure as they are comfortable again. This is rewarding (known as drive reduction) and therefore feeding is an example of positive reinforcement.
The food is a primary reinforcer because it directly supplies a reward.
The mother or caregiver who supplied the food is associated with the food and so becomes a secondary reinforcer. The infant becomes attached to the mother because she is a source of reward.
How does Isabella et al.’s (1989) study undermine the learning theory of attachment?
Ignore
Whilst some aspects of human behaviour can be explaining by conditioning, not all behaviour can, especially a complex behaviour like attachment. Research suggests that the quality of attachment is associated with factors like developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony (Isabella et al., 1989). The best quality attachments are with sensitive carers who pick up on infant signals and respond appropriately.
This suggests that the explanations of attachment may lack validity because they present an oversimplified view of human behaviour. If attachment developed purely or primarily as a result of feeding, there would be no purpose for reciprocity and interactional synchrony, and we would not expect to find relationships between them and the quality of caregiver-infant attachment.
How do Lorenz and Harlow’s studies undermine the learning theory of attachment?
A range of animal studies have shown that young animals do not necessarily attach to (or imprint on) those who feed them. Lorenz’s geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them. Harlow’s monkeys attached to a soft surrogate in preference to a wire one that dispensed milk.
This suggests that attachment does not develop as a result of feeding. Therefore, the same must be true of humans (i.e. food does not create an attachment bond) because behaviourists believe that humans and non-humans are equivalent. This suggests that the learning theory of attachment lack validity as it cannot explain these cases.
How does Schaffer and Emerson’s study undermine the learning theory of attachment?
Research with human infants also suggests that feeding does not appear to be an important factor in humans. For example, Schaffer and Emerson’s (1964) study found that 39% of infants developed a primary attachment to the person who did not feed them.
These findings are a problem for the learning theory as they suggest that feeding is not the key element to attachment and so there is no unconditioned stimulus or primary reinforcer involved. This suggests that the learning theory of attachment lack validity as it cannot explain these cases.
The learning theory may have got the reinforcer wrong (it may not be food). What could it be instead?
Learning theory may not provide a complete explanation of attachment, but it has some value. Infants do learn through association and reinforcement, but food may not be the main reinforcer. It may be that attention and responsiveness from a caregiver are important rewards that assist in the formation of attachment.
Such reinforcers were not part of the learning theory account but may be able to provide some explanation of attachment, and therefore the principles behind the learning theory (classical and operant conditioning) may have some validity in explaining attachment to a certain extent.
According to Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment, why do infants attach to their caregiver?
Bowlby proposed an evolutionary theory of attachment: the idea that we have an innate tendency to form attachments because they give a survival advantage (i.e. attachment is adaptive). An infant who is attached is better protected.
Explain the monotropic theory
Social releasers activate the adult attachment system (adults then care for the infant) –> The relationship between the primary attachment figure and infant is of special importance (monotropy). The attachment must form during the critical period (around 2 years) or there are irreversible consequences for infant –> The infant’s relationship with their monotropic figure creates an internal working model of what to expect in relationships and acts as an template for all future relationships –> This relationship then impacts all of their future relationships (continuity hypothesis)
How does the theory argue the attachment must be reciprocal?
The attachments are a two-way (reciprocal) process – parents must also be attached to their infants in order to ensure that they are cared for and survive. It is only the parents who look after their offspring that are likely to produce subsequent generations.
Therefore, attachment is a biological process, and caregiving is an evolutionary behaviour that has developed through natural selection.
How does Schaffer and Emerson’s study undermine Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
Bowlby suggested that babies formed one attachment to their primary caregiver and that this attachment was special and, in some way, different from later attachments. Only after this attachment was established could a child form multiple attachments. This is not supported by Schaffer and Emerson (1964). They found that most babies did attach to one person first. However, they also found that a significant minority appeared able to form multiple attachments at the same time.
This suggests that the idea monotropy may not be entirely externally valid as it doesn’t appear to apply to all infants. However, the findings may not be too far from what Bowlby intended. Secondary attachments in his view do contribute to social development but healthy development requires one central person ‘higher’ than all the others in a hierarchy.
How could Bowlby’s theory be considered socially sensitive?
Monotropy is a controversial idea because it has major implications for the lifestyle choices mothers make when their children are young. Having substantial time apart from a primary attachment figure risks a poor-quality attachment that will disadvantage the child in a range of ways later. This places a terrible burden of responsibility on mothers, setting them up to take the blame for anything goes wrong in the rest of the child’s life. It also pushes mothers into particular lifestyle choices like not returning to work when a child is born.
This was not Bowlby’s intention – he saw himself as boosting the status of mothers by emphasising the importance of their role. However, this has caused problems for mothers in the past, providing justification for discriminatory practices and judgement if they return to work quickly after the birth of their child. However, knowing the concept of monotropy is important for helping children within society to form attachments and therefore group up to have secure relationships
What evidence is there to support the importance of social releasers?
There is clear evidence to suggest that cute infant behaviours are intended to initiate social interaction and that doing so is important for the baby. Researchers observed mothers and babies during their interactions. Primary attachment figures were instructed to ignore their babies’ signals. The babies initially showed some distress, but when the attachment figures continued to ignore them, some responded by curling up and lying motionless. The fact that the children responded so strongly supports Bowlby’s ideas about the significance of infant social behaviour in eliciting caregiving.
What evidence is there to support the continuity hypothesis?
Ignore
The idea of internal working models is testable because it predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed on from one generation to the next. Researchers assessed 99 mothers with one-year-old babies on the quality of their attachment to their own mothers using a standard interview procedure. They also assessed the attachment of the babies to the mothers by observation. They found that the mothers who reported poor attachments to their own parents in the interviews were much more likely to have children classified as poor according to the observations. This supports the idea that, as Bowlby suggested, an internal working model of attachment was being passed through families (the continuity hypothesis). Therefore, this supports the validity of Bowlby’s explanation of attachment.
Which research method was used in the Strange Situation?
A controlled observation
Who were the participants in the Strange Situation?
About 100 middle-class American infants and their mothers took part.
Describe the procedure of the study and which attachment behaviours are being measured at each stage.
1 - Child and caregiver enter an unfamiliar playroom
2 - The caregiver takes the infant into the laboratory room and they are left to explore (tests exploration and a secure base)
3 - The stranger enters and interacts with the infant (tests stranger anxiety)
4 - The caregiver leaves unobtrusively and the stranger interacts with the infant (tests separation and stranger anxiety)
5 - The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves (tests reunion behaviour and exploration/secure base)
6 - The caregiver leaves so the infant is alone (tests separation anxiety)
7 - A stranger enters and approaches the infant (tests stranger anxiety)
8 - The caregiver returns and greets the infant (tests reunion behaviour)
Describe the results of the study
How many secure etc (%)
70% secure
15% insecure-avoidant
15% insecure-resistant
Describe the behaviours of a securely attached infant
Proximity seeking - happy to explore but regularly return to caregiver
Exploration and secure base - high exploration, strong use of mother as a secure base
Separation anxiety - moderate
Stranger anxiety - moderate
Reunion behaviour - easily comforted, require and accept comfort
Describe the behaviours of an insecure-avoidant infant
Proximity seeking - low
Exploration and secure base - high exploration, low use of mother as safe base
Separation anxiety - low
Stranger anxiety - low
Reunion behaviour - ignored/don’t require comfort
Describe the behaviours of an insecure-resistant infant
Proximity seeking - high
Exploration and secure base - low exploration
Separation anxiety - intense
Stranger anxiety - high
Reunion behaviour - inconsistent, resist comfort
The Strange Situation has good inter-rater reliability. How good? Why is this thought to be the case? Why is this a strength?
The Strange Situation shows very good inter-rater reliability. When different observers watch the same children in the Strange Situation, they generally agree on what attachment type to classify them with. This may be because the Strange Situation takes place under controlled conditions and because the behavioural categories are easy to observe. Research has found agreement on attachment type for 94% of tested babies in a team of trained observers. This means that we can confident that the attachment type of an infant identified in the Strange Situation does not just depend on who is observing them. Therefore, we can be more confident about the distinction between the attachment types.
Why might the Strange Situation be an imposed etic?
The Strange Situation may not have the same meaning in other cultures – it may be a culture-bound test. This is because cultural differences in childhood experiences are likely to mean that children respond differently to the Strange Situation. Additionally, caregivers from different cultures behave differently in the Strange Situation. Takahashi (1990) noted that the test doesn’t really work in Japan, because Japanese mothers are so rarely separated from their babies that there are very high levels of separation anxiety. Trying to apply a theory or technique designed for one culture in another culture is called an imposed etic. For example, extreme separation anxiety indicating insecure attachment in the Strange Situation is an imposed etic. In Japan, this behaviour might be seen as desirable closeness rather than undesirable dependence and hence not a sign of insecurity within that cultural context.
This suggests that the Strange Situation test may lack external validity and so if it is used in other cultures, we can’t easily compare attachment types. Infants may be inappropriately classified as insecurely attached on the basis of cultural differences in childrearing rather than because they are genuinely insecurely attached and so the results may also lack validity and so from the research we can't strongly support the validity of the attachment types proposed by Ainsworth across the world. This has ethical implications such as suggesting parents aren't being 'good parents' which could cause distress. Additionally, it suggests that the way of measuring the attachment types may not be appropriate outside of the culture it was created in and so it isn't a universal way of measuring attachment types.
There is a 4th type of attachment. What is this? Why is this a problem for the Strange Situation?
Ignore
There is a fourth type of attachment called insecure-disorganised (type D). Disorganised children display an odd mixture of resistant and avoidant behaviours. They show very strong attachment behaviour which is suddenly followed by avoidance or looking fearful towards their caregiver. This challenges Ainsworth’s idea of attachment types as she did not predict or find evidence of this fourth type, and did not predict an overlap between types of attachment. Therefore her attachment types may not be entirely valid.
What real-word applications are there of the attachment types?
Ignore
In situations where disordered patterns of attachment develop between infant and caregiver, intervention strategies can be developed. For example, teaching caregivers to better understand their infants’ signals of distress and to increase their understanding of what it feels like to feel anxious. It has been found that there was a decrease in caregivers classified as disordered (60% to 15%) and an increase in infants classified as securely attached (32% to 40%). This supports the attachment types because such research can be used to improve children’s lives, which is a strength as it suggests the results have external validity. Key note: it would be good to then add the consequences of being securely attached here using the top row - they have better and more successful relationships as they get older, supporting how important the interventions are and these were determined from Ainsworth’s research.
Attachment type is strongly predictive of later relationships. How? Why is this a strength of the theory?
Attachment type as defined by the Strange Situation is strongly predictive of later development. Babies assessed as secure typically go on to have better outcomes in many areas, ranging from success at school to romantic relationships and friendships in adulthood. Insecure-resistant attachment is associated with the worst outcomes, including bullying in later childhood and adult mental health problems. This supports the validity of the attachment types idea because it can explain subsequent differences in outcomes. This implies that there are differences in attachment types that then impact future relationships (as proposed by Bowlby in his monotropic theory of attachment).
What research method was used by van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg?
A meta-analysis
What was the sample in van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta-analysis?
32 studies, 8 countries (15 studies US), 1990 children
What did van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg measure?
The proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries to assess cultural variation
Describe the main trends in the cultural variations of attachment from their study. Explain why they likely occurred.
Intra-cultural variation was nearly 1.5 times greater than the cross-cultural variations (e.g. in the USA one study found 46% secure attachments and another found 90%; one of their Japanese studies showed no avoidant attachment babies, whereas the second found around 20%, which is similar to Ainsworth’s original findings). Van Ijzendoorn speculated that this was linked to differences in socio-economic factors and levels of stress that varied between samples used within each country.
In all countries, secure attachment was the most common attachment type (from 50% in China to 75% in Britain). Therefore, secure attachment is the norm in numerous cultures supporting Bowlby’s suggestion that attachment is innate and universal.
The average results were consistent with Ainsworth’s original study - 65% secure, 21% insecure-avoidant, 14% insecure-resistant (Ainsworth = 70% secure, 15% insecure-avoidant, 15% insecure-resistant).
Insecure-resistant was overall the least common attachment type (3% in Britain to 30% in Israel)
Insecure-avoidant was most common in Germany (35%) and least in Japan (5%)
What did van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg conclude?
Secure attachment seems to be the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal and this type is the universal norm. However, the research also clearly shows that cultural practices have an influence on attachment type.
How does Jin et al.’s study support van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s?
They conducted a study to compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies. The Strange Situation was used to assess 87 children. They found that the overall proportions of secure and insecure babies were similar to those in most countries, with most children being securely attached. More of those who were insecurely attached were resistant; only one was avoidant. This distribution is similar to the distribution of attachment types found in Japan. Since Japan and Korea have quite similar childrearing styles, this similarity might be explained in terms of childrearing style.
The results were similar to van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study as secure was the most common and therefore they would draw the same conclusion.
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg had a very large sample. How big? Why is this a strength?
Nearly 2000. Large sample increase the internal validity of the results by reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by bad methodology or very unusual participants. Additionally, the results are more likely to be externally valid as they will apply to other children in the country and so we can be more certain about cultural variations in attachment.
Why do critics believe that van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg didn’t study cultural variations? What do they think they studied instead? Why is this a problem?
Ignore
van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study claimed to study cultural variation, when in compared countries and not cultures. Within any country there are many different cultures, each with different childrearing practices. One sample, for example, might overrepresent people in poverty. The stress of this may impact childrearing and consequently attachment. An analysis found that distributions of attachments types in Tokyo were similar to Western studies, but a more rural sample had an over-representation of insecure-resistant infants.
This means that comparisons between countries may have little meaning. The particular cultural characteristics (and thus the caregiving styles) of the sample need to be specified. We should exercise great caution in assuming that an individual sample is representative of a particular culture. As such, the results may tell us less about cultural variations in attachment than previously thought.
The Strange Situation’s imposed etic poses a problem for van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study. How? Why is this a problem?
The Strange Situation was designed by an American researcher based on a British theory (Bowlby’s). There is a question over whether Anglo-American theories and assessments can be applied to other cultures. Trying to apply a theory or technique designed for one culture in another culture is called an imposed etic. For example, a lack of separation anxiety and lack of pleasure on reunion indicating insecure attachment in the Strange Situation is an imposed etic. In Germany, this behaviour might be seen more as independence than avoidance and hence not a sign of insecurity with that cultural context. Therefore, the theory is too rooted in American culture to be usefully applied to other cultures. Therefore the results may tell us less about cultural variations in attachment than previously thought.
The similarities in attachment across cultures are concluded to be due to attachment being adaptive. How else could the similarities be explained? As we can’t tell which of the two options is the actual reason for the similarities, why is this a problem?
Ignore
According to Bowlby’s theory, the reason for universal similarities in how attachments form is because attachment is an innate mechanism, unaffected by culture. At least some of the cultural similarities may be explained by the effects of mass media, which spread ideas about parenting. Consequently, the cultural similarities may not be due to innate biological influences, but because of our increasingly global culture. Therefore, from the research, it is not possible to definitively conclude the reason for cultural similarities in attachment.
Define maternal depriviation
The emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and his/her mother or mother-substitute. Bowlby proposed that continuous care from a mother is essential for normal psychological development, and that prolonged separation from this adult causes serious damage to emotional and intellectual development
Define affectionless psychopathy
Affectionless psychopathy is a complex psychological condition characterized by a profound lack of empathy and emotional connection towards others
Explain intellectual development
One way in which maternal deprivation affects children’s development is their intellectual development. Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would experience delayed intellectual development, characterised by abnormally low IQ
Explain Bowlby’s maternal deprivation using the key terms
- Maternal deprivation is the long-term separation or loss of emotional care from the mother or mother-substitute. Bowlby proposed that one particular attachment, with the primary attachment figure, is of special importance to the child’s emotional development (monotropy)
- If this attachment is broken during the critical period (around 2-2.5 years) and there is no suitable substitute, the infant will suffer irreversible long-term consequences.
- Bowlby proposed that maternal deprivation causes serious damage to intellectual development (abnormally low IQ and intellectual disability)
- Bowlby also said that maternal deprivation causes damage to emotional development (affectionless psychopathy – inability to experience guilt or strong emotions which prevents the development of normal relationships)
- Maternal deprivation affects the internal working model for future relationships
Describe the procedure and results of Bowlby’s 44 thieves study.
Aim: To examine the links between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation.
Procedure: They used a sample of 44 criminal teenagers who were accused of stealing. The participants were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy: characterised as a lack of affection, lack of guilt about their actions and lack of empathy for their victims. Their families were also interviewed to establish if there was prolonged early separation (deprivation) from their mothers. A control group of 44 non-criminal teenagers, with emotional problems, were all assessed to see how often maternal deprivation occurred to the children who were not thieves.
Results: 14 out of the 44 thieves were affectionless psychopaths and 17 out of the 44 had maternal separation. Of the 14 that were affectionless, 12 also had experienced prolonged separation (deprivation) in the first two years of life. In the control group 2 out of the 44 had maternal separation but 0 out of the 44 were categorised as affectionless psychopaths.
How does Bowlby’s 44 thieves study support the theory?
This supports the idea that maternal deprivation can affect children’s emotional development (affectionless psychopathy) and therefore suggests that the theory is valid as it may explain how affectionless psychopathy develops.
How is the Bowlby’s 44 thieves study flawed in its design? Why is this a problem?
Bowlby drew on a number of sources of evidence for the theory, including his 44 thieves study. However, this study has major design flaws. Most importantly was researcher bias – Bowlby himself carried out the assessments for affectionless psychopathy and the family interviews, knowing what he hoped for. Furthermore, the study was a correlation and so only a link between maternal deprivation and affectionless psychopathy was found. These criticisms compromise the internal validity of the study because we cannot determine cause and effect i.e. We cannot conclude that maternal deprivation causes affectionless psychopathy. As such, the study cannot provide strong support for the validity of maternal deprivation theory.
Lewis (1954) partially replicated the study. What did she find?
Lewis (1954) partially replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger scale, looking at 500 young people. In her sample, a history of maternal deprivation did not predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships. This is a problem for the theory because it suggests that other factors may affect the outcome of maternal deprivation and therefore the theory may not be completely valid.
Koluchova (1976) reported the case of twin boys from Czechoslovakia. What had happened to them and how did they act after being rescued? Why is this a problem for the theory?
Ignore
Bowlby used the term critical period because he believed that maternal deprivation inevitably caused damage if it took place within that period. However, later research has shown that this damage is not inevitable. Some cases of very severe deprivation have had good outcomes provided the child has some social interaction and good aftercare. For example, Koluchova (1976) reported the case of twin boys from Czechoslovakia who were isolated from the age of 18 months until they were seven-years-old (their step-mother locked them in a cupboard). Subsequently, they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully.
This suggests that the consequences of maternal deprivation may not be irreversible as proposed by the theory, and so the theory may not be completely valid. Counterargument: the Koluchova study is a case study and so the results may not be externally valid. The deprivation faced by the twins may be qualitatively different to the deprivation of others (they did have each other as attachment figures). Therefore we should exercise caution when using the conclusion to criticise the validity of maternal deprivation theory.
What were the real-world applications of Bowlby’s theory for hospitals?
Bowlby’s study and theory had an enormous impact on post-war thinking about childrearing and also on how children were looked after in hospitals. Before Bowlby’s research, children were separated from parents when they spent time in hospital. Visiting was discouraged or even forbidden. Bowlby’s work led to a major social change in the way that children were cared for in hospital. For example, parents being able to stay overnight with their children. This supports the external validity of the theory as it has important implications for the NHS.
Give a technical definition of institutionalisation.
Institutionalisation refers to the effects of living in an institutional setting (i.e. outside of the family or family home) e.g. hospital, orphanage, where children live for long, continuous periods of time. There is often very little emotional care provided. Institutionalisation results in the child adopting the rules and norms of the institution that can impair functioning. It is thought that the effects of institutionalisation are irreversible.
Name and define four effects of institutionalisation.
- Physical underdevelopment – children in institutional care are usually physically small. Lack of emotional care rather than poor nourishment is the cause of what has been called developmental dwarfism.
- Intellectual under functioning/low IQ – children in institutional care often show signs of intellectual disability disorder as identified by Bowlby.
- Lack of internal working model – children in institutional care may have difficulty interacting with peers and forming close relationships
- Quasi-autism – children in institutional care sometimes have difficulty understanding the meaning of social contexts and may display obsessional behaviour
Describe the procedure and results of Rutter et al.’s (2011) orphan study
Rutter et al. followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain to test to what extent good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions. The orphans had spent their early lives in Romanian institutions and so suffered from the effects of institutionalisation. Of this group, 111 were adopted before the age of two, and a further 54 by the age of 4. Physical, cognitive and emotional development were assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years (longitudinal study). Information was also gathered in interviews with parents and teachers. A group of 52 children adopted around the same time in Britain served as a control group. These children were adopted before the age of six months.
At the time of adoption, the Romanian orphans lagged behind their British counterparts on all measures. They were smaller, weighed less and showed signs of intellectual disability disorder. By the age of four, some of the children had caught up with their British counterparts. This was true for almost all of the Romanian children adopted before the age of six months.
When they first arrived in the UK, half of the adoptees showed signs of intellectual disability disorder, and the majority were severely malnourished. At age 11, the adopted children showed differential rates of recovery that were related to their age of adoption. The mean IQ of those adopted before the age of six months was 102, compared with 86 for those adopted between six months and two years, and 77 for those adopted after two years. These differences remained at age 16.
In terms of attachment, there appeared to be a difference in outcome related to whether adoption took place before or after six months.
Those children adopted after they were six months old showed signs of disinhibited attachment. Symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults (familiar and strangers). In contrast, those adopted before the age of six months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
What real-world applications has Rutter et al.’s (2011) orphan study had for children’s homes and orphanages?
Studying the Romanian orphans has enhanced our understanding of the effects of institutionalisation. Such results have led to improvements in the way children are cared for. For example, orphanages and children’s homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child and instead ensure that a much smaller number of people, perhaps only one or two, play a central role for the child. This person is called a key worker. Having a key worker means that the children have the chance to develop normal attachments and helps avoid disinhibited attachment. This suggests that the research has been immensely valuable in practical terms (as such children will then be more successful in relationships later on, meaning fewer pressures on mental health services etc.), supporting its external validity.
Rutter et al.’s (2011) orphan study controlled which confounding variables? Why is this a strength?
Ignore
Many orphan studies involved children who had experienced loss or trauma before they were institutionalised. For example, they may have experience neglect, abuse or bereavement. These children were often traumatised by their experiences and suffered bereavement. It was very hard to observe the effects of institutionalisation in isolation because the children were dealing with multiple factors which functioned as confounding participant variables. However, in the case of the Romanian orphans, it has been possible to study institutionalisation without these confounding variables, which means that findings have increased internal validity. Therefore, we can be more confident in the conclusions of the effects of institutionalisation (see cause and effect between the institutionalisation and its effects in terms of whether they are irreversible or not).
Why is it unlikely that the results of Rutter et al.’s (2011) orphan study would be generalisable? Why is this a problem for the theory?
It is possible that the conditions were so bad that the results cannot be applied to understanding the impact of better quality institutional care or any situation where children experience deprivation. For example, Romanian orphanages had particularly poor standards of care, especially when it came to forming any relationship with the children, and extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation. The unusual situational variables mean that the study may lack external validity and so tells us less about the effects of institutionalisation than previously thought.
The children were not randomly allocated to conditions in Rutter et al.’s (2011) orphan study. Why is this a problem?
Ignore
The children were not randomly allocated to conditions. The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process, which may mean that the more sociable children were adopted early and so their sociability acted as a confounding variable. This compromises the internal validity of the conclusions about the effects of institutionalisation because we cannot determine cause and effect.
Counterargument: however, this makes the study more ethical as they didn’t deliberately interfere with the adoption process.
What evidence is there that institutionalisation may not be irreversible?
One of the findings from the Romanian study was that at the last assessment, a lower number of children had disinhibited attachment. It may be that the effects of institutionalisation do disappear over time if children have good-quality emotional care. It may be that ex-institutional children need more time than normal to mature sufficiently and learn to cope with relationships. The theory implies that the effects may be irreversible, but these findings suggest this may not be true and so the effects of institutionalisation may lack validity.
Describe the results of another study of institutionalisation.
Le Mare and Audet (2006):
They reported findings from a longitudinal study of 36 Romanian orphans adopted to families in Canada. The dependent variables were physical growth and health. The adopted orphans were physically smaller than the matched control group at age four and a half years, but this difference disappeared by 10 and a half years. The same was true for physical health.
According to Bowlby, how does our early attachment (to our primary attachment figure) affect our later relationships?
Bowlby suggested that attachment to a primary attachment figure (monotropic figure) provides a child with a mental representation of this relationship (internal working model), which acts as a template for future relationships. Therefore, the quality of a child’s first attachment is crucial.
The internal working model leads to the continuity hypothesis, which suggests that later relationships are likely to be a continuation of early attachment types. A child whose first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver (securely attached) will assume relationships are meant to be that way. They will then seek out functional relationships and behave functionally within them, without being too uninvolved (insecure-avoidant) or being controlling and argumentative (insecure-resistant). The latter two attachment types experienced in childhood may result in struggling to form relationships in the first place, or not behaving appropriately when they have them (both friends and partners).
What did Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998) find?
- 56% were securely attached, 25% insecure-avoidant, and 19% insecure-resistant.
- They found a positive correlation between attachment type and love experiences.
- Secure attachments were most likely to have good and longer lasting romantic experiences.
- Insecure-avoidant tended to reveal jealousy and fear of intimacy.
- Insecure-resistants tended to fall in love easily but found it difficult to find true love.
- These findings suggest that patterns of attachment behaviour are reflected in adult romantic relationships, supporting the internal working model and continuity hypothesis.
What did McCarthy (1999) find?
They found that secure were the best at adult friendships
Insecure-resistant had particular problems with adult friendships
Secure had the best romantic relationships as an adult
Insecure-avoidant had problems with intimacy
How is the theory determinist? Why is this a problem?
The research suggests that very early experiences have a fixed effect on later adult relationships, and therefore children who are insecurely attached as infants are doomed to experience emotionally unsatisfactory relationships as adults. This is overly determinist. Fortunately, this is not the case as researchers have found plenty of evidence where participants were experiencing happy adult relationships despite not having been securely attached as infants. Overall, the research does not suggest that an individual’s past unalterably determines the future cause of his/her relationships. This suggests that the effects of early attachment on later relationships may not be entirely valid.
Internal working models are unconscious. Why is this a problem when trying to investigate the theory?
There is a theoretical problem with most research related to the internal working model. Internal working models are unconscious so we are not directly aware of their influence on us. We would not really expect to get direct evidence about them by means of interviews or questionnaires because people can only self-report what they are aware of. When participants self-report on their relationships they are relying on their conscious understanding of those relationships. At best, self-report gives us indirect evidence about internal working models. As such, we can’t definitively conclude that early attachment causes effects on later relationships.
What evidence is there to undermine that early attachment influences later relationships?
Ignore
Not all studies support internal working models. Zimmerman (2000) assessed infant attachment types and adolescent attachment to parents. There was very little relationship between the quality of both types of attachment. This is a problem because it is not what we would expect if internal working models were important in development. This therefore suggests that the effects of early attachment on later relationships may not be entirely valid.
Many studies assess the quality of infant-parent attachment using self-report techniques years later.Many studies assess the quality of infant-parent attachment using self-report techniques years later. Why is this a problem?
This is retrospective – looking back on one’s early relationships in adulthood may lead to inaccurate recollections. Additionally, they depend on respondents being honest and having a realistic view of their own relationships. Therefore, there may be issues of social desirability bias and retrospective recall which may compromise the validity of the results [you would need to explain how here]. As such, from the research, we can’t strongly support the effects of early attachment on later relationships.
Lots of the research also relies on self-report techniques years after the early attachment. Why is this a problem?
Ignore
Studies have found an association between infant attachment type and the quality of later relationships. The implication is that attachment type causes later relationships. However, a third factor such as temperament may affect both infant attachment and the quality of later relationships. This means that the research lacks internal validity and counters Bowlby’s view that the internal working model causes later relationship outcomes.
