Attatchment Evaluations Flashcards
Caregiver-Infant Interactions: Filmed Observations
One strength of this research is that caregiver-infant interactions are usually filmed in a laboratory. This means that other activity, that might distract a baby, can be controlled. Infants are also unlikely to change their behaviour in response to a filmed observation and so their behaviour will be natural.
Also, using films means that observations can be recorded and analysed later. Therefore, it is unlikely that researchers will miss seeing key behaviours. This methodology also allows multiple observers to analyse behaviour, meaning that data will likely be more reliable. For all of these reasons, the use of filmed observations improves the quality of the research as the data collected should have good reliability and validity.
Caregiver-Infant Interactions: Difficulty Observing Babies
One limitation of research into caregiver-infant interactions is that it is hard to interpret a baby’s behaviour. Young babies lack coordination and much of their body is almost immobile. The movements being observed are just small hand movements or subtle changes in expression. It is difficult to be sure, for example, whether a baby is smiling or just passing wind. It is also difficult to determine what is taking place from the baby’s perspective. For example, we cannot know whether a movement such as a hand twitch is random or triggered by something the caregiver has done. This means we cannot be certain that the behaviours seen in caregiver-infant interactions have a special meaning.
Caregiver-Infant Interactions: Developmental Importance
Weakness: Developmental Importance
A further limitation is that simply observing a behaviour does not tell us its developmental importance. Although Isabella et al claimed to have found that achievement of interactional synchrony predicted the development of a good quality attachment, this has not always been replicated by other researchers. For example, Feldman points out that ideas like synchrony simply gives names to patterns of observable caregiver and baby behaviours. These are robust phenomena in the sense that they can be reliably observed, but they still may not be particularly useful in understanding child development as it does not tell us the purpose of these behaviours. This means that we cannot be certain from observational research alone that reciprocity and synchrony are important for a child’s development.
Harlow’s Monkeys: Theoretical Values
One strength of the research is that it has theoretical value when applied to real-life parenting.
Harlow’s research has had a profound effect on psychologist’s understanding of human-infant attachment. Harlow showed that it is close contact that enables the attachment to develop, and not just nursing. Harlow also showed us the importance of the quality of early attachments for later social development, something which is observed in humans also. Therefore, Harlow’s research has been helpful in analysing attachments between mother and infant.
Harlow’s Monkeys: Practical Value
One strength of the research is that it has practical value. Howe (1998) highlighted the importance of Harlow’s research in helping social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse and helps to prevent further neglect. Harlow’s research also has practical implications for the animals themselves. We now understand the importance of proper attachment figures in zoos for baby monkeys and in breeding programmes in the wild. These are strengths a we can use the research to have a positive impact in society.
Harlow’s Monkeys: Ethical Issues
One weakness of Harlow’s research is that there are major ethical implications. The suffering the monkey’s faced in this research was vast. As these monkeys are considered human-like enough to be used in these studies, this suggests their suffering could have been human-like as well. It appears Harlow knew their study would involve suffering as he named the wire mothers the “iron maidens” after the medieval torture device, and the isolation tanks “pits of despair”. Despite many arguing that the importance of the findings outweigh the ethical issues, it is problematic to ignore the levels of suffering endured.
Lorenz’s Geese: Generalisability
One weakness of the research is that it is difficult to generalise findings from birds to humans. Lorenz was interested in the phenomenon of imprinting in birds. However attachment in mammals is very different to that of birds; mammals don’t imprint as their young are far less developed. Mammalian mothers show more attachment to their young than birds do, as well as playing a greater caring role. This shows that even among animals there are attachment differences.
Therefore, it is not appropriate to try to generalise any of Lorenz’s ideas to humans.
Lorenz’s Geese: Questionable observations.
One weakness of the research is that researchers have questioned Lorenz’s conclusions. Guiton et al (1966) observed that chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves and would try to mate with them. However, they eventually learned to mate with chickens. Lorenz’s research would support this initial observation, but Lorenz also concluded that imprinting was permanent, showing there is conflict regarding his observations. Therefore, the permanence of the imprinting-based attachment can be challenged by counter-research.
Role of the Father: Real World Application
One strength of the research into the role of the father is that it can offer advice to parents in the real-world. Parents often agonise over decisions regarding who should be the primary caregiver. Mothers may feel pressure to stay at home due to stereotypes surrounding the role of mothers and fathers. This research reassures parents that fathers can adopt the role of the primary caregiver or have an important distinctive role. In addition this reassures same-sex couples that their children’s development will not be affected. Therefore, this research helps reduce anxiety in new parents and helps parents make real life decisions about their parenting.
Role of the Father: Confusion Over Research Questions
One weakness of research into the role of the father is clarity over the question being asked. The question “what is the role of the father” in terms of attachment is a far more complicated question than it initially appears to be. Some researchers want to explore the role of the father as a primary caregiver, others as a secondary caregiver. Some research suggests the father’s role is to play, others suggest they can the primary caregiver. This makes it difficult to offer a simple answer to the question of ‘what is the role of the father’ and the research should be more specific.
Role of The Father: Conflicting Evidence
One weakness of research into the role of the father is that the evidence conflicts depending on the methodology used. Longitudinal studies such as Grossmann et al have suggested that fathers as secondary caregivers have an important yet distinct role in their child’s development. However, if fathers have a distinctive and important role we would expect children growing up in single mother or lesbian households to turn out differently to children raised in heteroexual households. McCallum and Golombok (2004) found that this is not the case. The presence of conflicting evidence therefore leaves the question of whether the role of the father is distinct as unanswered.
Role of the Father: Observer Bias
One weakness in the research of Grossmann is the potential for researcher bias. Stereotypical images of fathers and their role in parenting are regularly seen in advertising and in the media more generally. These stereotypes about fatherhood could have caused unintended observer bias, therefore leading to the conclusion that the father’s role is distinctive to that of the mother. Therefore they could have been observing what they expected to see rather than objective reality.
Stages of Attachment: External Validity
One strength of Schaffer and Emerson’s research is that it has high external validity. Schaffer and Emerson conducted the observations using ordinary activities. In addition, most of the observations were recorded by the parents themselves in the child’s own home. This means that the behaviour of the babies is more likely to be natural and they are unlikely to be affected by the presence of others or by an alien environment which could distract the participants. This increases the validity of the study and suggests the findings can be applied to children from a similar demographic in their own homes.
Stages of Attachment: Poor Evidence for the Asocial Stage
One criticism of Schaffer’s stages involves the validity of measures used to assess the asocial stage. Young babies in this stage are largely immobile and have poor coordination. This means that anxiety in everyday situations for babies that are less than two months could be subtle and difficult to observe. This means that the reports on signs of anxiety and attachment from the mothers may be based on inaccurate observations during this stage. This means that the child’s feelings and cognitions may actually be quite social when because of flawed methods, they appear to be asocial.
Stages of Attachment: Real-Life Application
One strength of Schaffer’s stages is that they have real life applications in response to day care (being cared for by a non-family adult). Day care is likely to be straightforward during the asocial and indiscriminate stages as young babies can be comforted by non-familiar and skilled adults. However, Schaffer’s research tells us that young babies attending day care, more specifically, starting daycare during the specific attachment stage, may be problematic. This means that parents and day care providers can be informed and implement child care programmes based on Schaffer’s stages.
Stages of Attachment: Generalisability
One criticism of Schaffer and Emerson’s research is that the sample studied is very limited. The sample studied only considered 60 babies from working class families in Glasgow. Whilst there was a considerable amount of data collected from the 60 families, all of the families were from the same socio-demographic. The research does not therefore consider cultural differences. For example, in collectivist cultures, multiple attachments form from a very early age (van IJzendoorn). Therefore the limited sample makes it difficult to generalise the results across social and historical contexts.
Explanations of Attatchment: Counter Evidence from Animal Research
One weakness of the research is lack of support from studies conducted on animals. For example, Lorenz’s geese imprinted before they were fed, showing that in this research, feeding was not crucial to attachment. Furthermore, in Harlow’s monkey study, there is no support for the importance of food. When given a choice, the rhesus monkeys consistently displayed attachment behaviour to the cloth mother in preference to the ‘iron maiden’ who provided milk. This shows that other factors other than association with food are important in the formation of attachments.
Explanations of Attatchment: Counter Evidence from Human Research
One weakness of learning theory is a lack of support from studies of human babies. Schaffer and Emerson’s research showed that many of the infants formed primary attachments to their biological mothers, despite the fact other caregivers also fed and in some cases did most of the feeding for the infant. This again demonstrates that food is not always the main factor in the formation of human attachments. ‘Cupboard love’ therefore, is not always evident in attachment making and creates conflict in the conclusions drawn from different human studies.
Explanations of Attatchment: Other Factors in Forming Attachments
One weakness of the research is that factors other than ‘cupboard love’ are not considered in forming attachments. Research into infant-caregiver interactions suggest that the quality of attachment is associated with factors such as developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony - Isabella et al. If, as cupboard love suggests, attachment is the primary result of feeding, there would be no reason for complex interactions between mother and infant. Therefore cupboard love alone is not a complete answer to the question of how attachments are made.
Explanations of Attatchment: Social Learning Theory
One strength of cupboard love theory is that there have been newer developments in the theory, the newer, ‘social learning theory’. Hay and Vespo (1988) suggest that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviour e.g hugging. They then positively reinforce good behaviours with praise. This is a development on previous learning theories of attachment as it does not rely on cupboard love, and can be reconciled with other human research. Therefore, showing that social learning theory does not have to rely on cupboard love and therefore can be seen as a convincing explanation for attachment.
Bowlby’s Theory: Support for Internal Working Models
One strength of Bowlby’s theory is that there is temporal validity in the research support for internal working models. Hazan and Shaver (1987) used a self-report questionnaire called ‘The Love Quiz’ to assess the internal working model. They found a positive correlation between early attachment types and later adult relationships. Furthermore Bailey et al. (2007) provide evidence for this in their research on 99 mothers where it was found that those with poor attachment to their own parents were more likely to have children who were poorly attached. The above research suggests that our early childhood experiences do affect our later adult lives, and this has been confirmed over time. Therefore, supporting Bowlby’s internal working model.
Bowlby’s Theory: Support for Social Releasers
One strength of Bowlby’s research is that there is further research support for the idea of social releasers. Brazelton et al (1975) observed babies and mothers during their interactions and found there was interactional synchrony. They then took their research further from an observation to an experiment. Primary attachment figures were instructed to ignore their babies’ signals. The babies initially showed distressed, and when further ignored curled up onto the fetal position. The fact that the children responded so strongly supports Bowlby’s ideas about the significance of infant social behaviour in establishing strong primary attachments.
Bowlby’s Theory: Mixed Evidence for Monotropy
One weakness of Bowlby’s theory is that there is mixed evidence for the importance of monotropy.
Schaffer and Emerson’s (1964) research found that infants can form multiple primary attachments as 27% of the babies in their study formed a joint attachment to their mother and father at the same time. The fact that some children formed multiple attachments, challenges the idea that infants need one attachment which supersedes all others and forms the foundations for future relationships.
Therefore, this demonstrates that there is conflicting evidence for the central concept of monotropy which challenges Bowlby’s theory as a whole.
Bowlby’s Theory: Alternative Explanations
One weakness of the research is that there are other explanations for attachment behaviours such as individual difference. Kagan (1984) proposed the “temperament hypothesis” which suggests that a child’s genetically inherited personality traits (temperament) have a role to play in forming an attachment with a caregiver. It is thought that infants have differing temperaments because of their biological makeup. Some are more sociable and ‘easy’ and others are more anxious and ‘difficult’ babies. It is argued that Bowlby ignored the role of temperament, preferring instead to focus on the early childhood experiences and quality of attachment. This was an oversight since personality differences in the child can influence whether they become securely or insecurely attached - this suggests that Bowlby’s theory may be incomplete.
