Topic 3 - Attachment (complete!!!!) Flashcards
Define attachment
A close two-way emotional bond between individuals in which each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security
What are the two key features of caregiver-infant interactions?
- Reciprocity
- Interactional synchrony
Describe reciprocity - give an example
An interaction is said to show reciprocity when each person responds to the other and elicits a response from them
Example : Caregiver might respond to a baby’s smile by saying something which in turn elicits a response from the baby
Reciprocal interaction often called ‘turn-taking’ - important for conversation, otherwise people talk over each other
Describe reciprocity in terms of:
- Alert phases
Alert Phases:
- Babies have periodic ‘alert phases’ where they signal (e.g. making eye contact) that they are ready for interaction
- Feldman + Eidelman (2007) - found that mothers typically pick up and respond to baby’s alertness around 2/3 of time
- Depends on skill of mother + other external factors e.g. stress (Finegood et al)
- From around 3 months this interaction becomes increasingly frequent (Feldman 2007)
- Involves both mother + baby paying close attention to each other’s verbal signals + facial expressions (Feldman 2007)
Describe reciprocity in terms of :
- Active involvement
Active involvement:
- Traditional views of childhood portray babies in a passive role - only receiving care from adult
- However seems that babies take more of an active role - both caregiver + baby can initiate interactions, appear to take turns in doing so
- Brazelton et al (1975) - described interaction as a “dance” because each partner responds to the other person’s moves
Describe interactional synchrony - give an example
Two people are said to be synchronised when they carry out the same action simultaneously
Interactional synchrony = the temporal co-ordination of micro-level social behaviour (Feldman, 2007)
Takes place when caregiver and baby interact in such a way that their actions and emotions mirror each other
Example: When a baby and caregiver start smiling at each other at the same time
Describe interactional synchrony in terms of:
- When synchrony begins
Include any relevant research
Meltzoff + Moore (1977) = wanted to investigate the age at which interactional synchrony begins :
- Observed beginnings of interactional synchrony in babies as young as 2 weeks old
- Adult displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions or 1 of 3 distinctive gestures
- Babies’ response filmed + labelled by independent observers
- Babies’ expressions + gestures more likely to mirror those of the adult’s more than chance could predict i.e. there was a SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION
Suggests interactional synchrony significant for infant development + attachment formation as it begins at such an early age (two weeks old)
Describe interactional synchrony in terms of:
- Its importance for attachment
Include any relevant research
Isabella et al (1989) = investigated how levels of interactional synchrony affected the quality of attachment between infant and caregiver:
- Observed 30 mothers and their babies together + assessed the degree of synchrony
- Also assessed quality of mother-baby attachment
- Found that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-baby attachment - i.e. the emotional intensity of the relationship
Further supports idea that interactional synchrony essential for quality attachment between caregiver and infant
Caregiver-infant interactions are usually filmed in a lab - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
- Can link to Meltzoff + Moore’s experiment (interactional synchrony)
- Means that other activity that might distract the baby can be controlled (i.e. high control of EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES because of lab setting)
- Using films means that observations can be recorded + analysed later - unlikely that researchers will miss seeing key behaviours
- Having observable films means that more than one observer can record data + establish INTER-OBSERVER RELIABILITY
- Babies do not know they are being observed as film is observed separately, so behaviour does not change in response to observation - eliminates problem of OVERT OBSERVATIONS
Therefore data collected in such research should have good RELIABILITY and VALIDITY
It’s difficult to observe a babies behaviour because of their lack of co-ordination when observing caregiver-infant interactions - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
- Difficult to interpret a baby’s behaviour (often somewhat SUBJECTIVE)
- Young babies lack co-ordination + much of their bodies are almost immobile
- Therefore movements observed are minute or subtle e.g. difficult to be certain if baby is smiling or just passing wind
- Also difficult to determine what’s taking place from a baby’s perspective e.g. cannot be sure whether a hand twitch is random or triggered by something carer had done
- FLAWED METHODOLOGY - perhaps observing a young baby’s behaviour isn’t the most RELIABLE form of data
Means that we cannot be certain that behaviour seen in caregiver-infant interactions have any special meaning - perhaps data from research isn’t as VALID as initially thought
Some psychologists argue that observing caregiver-infant interactions does not tell us anything about its developmental importance - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
- Feldman (2012) argues that ideas like synchrony (and by implication reciprocity) simply gives names to patterns of observable caregiver and baby behaviours
- Argues that they are ‘robust phenomena’-they can be reliably observed, but still may not be useful in understanding child development - does not tell us the purpose of these behaviours
- Caregiver-infant interactions simply put a label on similar behaviours, but does not tell us why these behaviours are significant in development or why they occur
Means that we cannot be certain from observational research alone that reciprocity + interactional synchrony are important for a child’s development
Some psychologists have found that caregiver-infant interactions are important for development - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
STRENGTH (COUNTERPOINT to Feldman’s argument)
Evidence from Isabella et al’s research - found that achievement of interactional synchrony predicted the development of a good quality attachment
Means that, with multiple viewpoints and research taken into consideration, caregiver-infant interaction is most likely important for an infant’s development
Research into early caregiver-infant interactions have practical APPLICATIONS in the real world - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
Research has practical applications in parenting skills training
Crotwell et al (2013) found that a 10 minute parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) improved interactional synchrony in 20 low-income mothers and their pre school children
Means that research into caregiver-infant interactions makes a valuable contribution in improving society - especially for the disadvantaged
Research into caregiver-infant interactions is SOCIALLY SENSITIVE - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
Research into caregiver-infant interactions can be used to argue that when a mother returns to work after having a baby, it may risk damaging their baby’s development
Puts blame on mother for child’s development + fuels a potentially harmful STEREOTYPE/TRADITIONALIST view
Note: Most research is in the context between mother + baby (e.g. Isabella, Finegood, Feldman + Eidelman) - very easy to misinterpret CAREGIVER-infant interactions with MOTHER-infant interactions
Caregiver isn’t synonymous with mother - however research makes it very easy to mix these two up - i.e. research makes it seem as if its only the reciprocity and interactional synchrony between mother and child that matters in development
Therefore research into caregiver-infant interactions needs to be carefully evaluated when being added as support for the theory - it can be used to fuel very harmful stereotypes and can be easily misinterpreted
Describe Shaffer + Emerson’s (1964) procedure of their OBSERVATIONAL STUDY which they based their theory of the stages of attachment on
- Sample = 60 babies from Glasgow - majority from skilled working-class families
- Researchers visited babies and mothers in their own homes every month for the first year + once again at 18 months
- Researchers asked the mothers questions about the kind of protest their babies showed in seven everyday separations e.g. baby crying when adult leaves the room shows separation anxiety
- Levels of stranger + separation collated and used to measure the baby’s attachment
Describe Shaffer + Emerson’s (1964) findings of their OBSERVATIONAL STUDY which they based their theory of the stages of attachment on
- Schaffer + Emerson put levels of stranger + separation anxiety as well as assessed attachment to mother in a table
- Identified 4 distinct stages in the development of infant attachment behaviour - used to make their theory of attachment
What are the 4 stages in Schaffer + Emerson’s ( 1964) theory of attachment?
- Stage 1 = Asocial Stage
- Stage 2 = Indiscriminate Attachment
- Stage 3 = Specific Attachment
- Stage 4 = Multiple attachments
Describe the Asocial stage in Schaffer + Emerson’s ( 1964) theory of attachment
Stage 1:
- Age: first few weeks of life
- Observable behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects fairly similar
- However baby does still show some signs of preferring company of familiar people + are more easily comforted by them
- Baby is beginning to form bonds with certain people which form the basis of later attachments
Describe the Indiscriminate Attachment stage in Schaffer + Emerson’s ( 1964) theory of attachment
Stage 2:
- Age: 2-7 months
- Babies begin to display more obvious + observable social behaviours
- Now show clear preference for company of human beings than inanimate objects
- Recognise + prefer company of familiar people
- However at this stage baby will accept cuddles and comfort from any person - therefore ‘indiscriminate attachment’
- Do not usually show separation anxiety or stranger anxiety
Describe the Specific Attachment stage in Schaffer + Emerson’s ( 1964) theory of attachment
Stage 3:
Age: 7 months
- Baby begins to show classic signs of attachment to one particular person
- Begins to show stranger + separation anxiety
- Baby has now formed a specific attachment - the person whom the attachment is formed = primary attachment figure
- Primary attachment figure not necessarily the individual child spends most time with but the one how offers the most reciprocity + interactional synchrony with the most skill
- Primary attachment figure is the baby’s mother 65% of the time
Describe the Multiple Attachments stage in Schaffer + Emerson’s ( 1964) theory of attachment
Stage 4:
Age: begins from 8 months-1 year onwards
- Shortly after babies start to show attachment behaviour (stranger + separation anxiety) to one person its usually extended to multiple attachments
- These new relationships = secondary attachments
- Observed that 29% of the children formed secondary attachments within a month of forming a primary attachment
- By the age of 1 year, majority of babies have developed multiple attachments
Shaffer and Emerson’s research into the stages of attachment have good EXTERNAL VALIDITY - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
Most observations (except stranger anxiety) were made during ordinary activities and reported to the researchers
Meant that researchers did not have to be present to record observations, if they were then it might have distracted the babies or made them feel more anxious
Means that it is highly likely that ppts behaved naturally whilst being observed
There may have been an issue with asking mothers to be the observers in Shaffer and Emerson’s research into the stages of attachment - explain why and state whether this is a strength or weakness
WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to good external validity argument)
- Mother’s unlikely to be OBJECTIVE OBSERVERS - introduces BIAS into their findings and decreases the RELIABILITY of their corresponding theory
- Might have been BIASED in terms of what they noticed and reported e.g. might not have noticed when their baby was showing signs of anxiety or may have misremembered it
- Means that even if baby’s behaved naturally, its pointless if their behaviour wasn’t accurately recorded
It can be argued that there is poor evidence for the Asocial stage in Schaffer and Emerson’s (1964) theory of attachment - explain why and state whether this is a strength or weakness
WEAKNESS
METHODOLOGY for assessing attachment in the asocial stage may have VALIDITY issues
Young babies have poor co-ordination + are fairly immobile
If babies less than 2 months old felt anxiety they might have displayed it in quite subtle, hard to observe ways
Therefore difficult for mothers to observe and report back to researchers on signs of anxiety and attachment in this age group
Means that babies may actually be quite social in this stage, but because of flawed methods in assessing this, the appear asocial
COMPROMISES CREDIBILITY of overall theory
Schaffer and Emerson’s (1964) theory on the stages of attachment has real world application - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
Theory has practical application in day care
e.g. in asocial and indiscriminate attachment stage day care likely to be straightforward - babies have no specific attachments and can be comforted by any skilled adult
By using the theory, we can predict that day care, especially starting day care with an unfamiliar adult, may be problematic during the specific attachment stage
Means that parents’ use of day care can be planned using Schaffer + Emerson’s theory - has real world practical application which can help the lives of ordinary people
Schaffer and Emerson’s sample in their research into the stages of attachment were babies from Glasgow - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
Sample taken from and INDIVIDUALIST culture - Glasgow
Other psychologists found that in COLLECTIVIST cultures, multiple attachments from a very early age are more the norm (IJzendoorn 1993)
Findings of their research (and by implication their theory) may not be GENERALISABLE as their sample is not REPRESENTATIVE of the target population
Cannot apply theory to all cultures
What is the difference between a primary caregiver and a primary attachment figure?
Primary caregiver: person who spends the most time with the baby, caring for its needs
Primary attachment figure: The person whom the baby has the strongest attachment to
Often the same person fulfils the same two roles but not always
What did Schaffer and Emerson (1964) find about a baby’s attachment to their father as an attachment figure?
- In only 3% of cases the father was the first sole object of attachment at 7 months old
- In 27% of cases the father was the joint first object of attachment with the mother at 7 months old
- Found that most fathers go on to become important attachment figures at later ages
- 75% of babies formed an attachment with their father by the age of 18 months
Describe Grossmann et al’s (2002) procedure in his LONGITUDINAL STUDY into the distinctive role of the father as an attachment figure
Aim: To investigate whether caregiving men make a unique contribution to early development
- Carried out a LONGITUDINAL STUDY were babies’ attachment measured up to their teens
- Researchers looked at both parents’ behaviour and its relationship to the quality of the baby’s later attachments to other people
Describe Grossmann et al’s (2002) findings and conclusions in his LONGITUDINAL STUDY into the distinctive role of the father as an attachment figure
- Quality of baby’s attachment with mothers, but not fathers, related to attachments in adolescence
- However, found that quality of fathers’ play with babies related to the quality of adolescent attachments
- Suggests that fathers have a different role from mothers - one that is more to do with play + stimulation rather than emotional development
What is the significance of a primary attachment figure?
Baby’s primary attachment figure has special emotional significance
Relationship with primary attachment figure forms basis of all later close emotional relationships
Describe Field’s (1978) procedure in their study into the role of the father as a primary attachment figure
Aim: To investigate whether fathers are able to adopt the emotional role associated with mothers when they become the primary attachment figure
- Filmed 4 month old babies in face-to-face interaction with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiver fathers
Describe Field’s (1978) findings and conclusions in their study into the role of the father as a primary attachment figure
- Both primary caregiver mothers and primary caregiver fathers spent more time smiling, imitating and holding babies than secondary caregiver fathers
- Smiling + imitating = examples of interactional synchrony and reciprocity - part of the process of good quality attachment formation
- Suggests that fathers do have the potential to be the more emotion-focused primary attachment figure
- Fathers can provide the responsiveness needed for close emotional attachment
- However seems like this is only expressed when the father is given the role of the primary caregiver
There is a lack of clarity between researchers when studying the role of the father in attachment, leading to inconsistent findings - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
Some researchers are interested in understanding the role of the father as secondary attachment figures whereas others are more concerned with fathers as primary caregivers
Former tend to see fathers as behaving differently from mothers and having a distinct role (e.g. Grossmann et al)
Latter have found that fathers can take on a ‘maternal’ role
Makes it difficult to offer a comprehensive answer to the ‘role of the father’ - conflicting perspectives provide conflicting evidence
Means that its difficult to draw conclusions about the role of the father - answer is circumstantial on the perspective you’re looking at
Findings on the role of the father vary according to the methodology used, resulting in conflicting evidence - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
LONGITUDINAL studies (e.g. Grossmann et al) have suggested that fathers as secondary attachment figures have an important + distinct role in a child’s development - involving play and stimulation
However if the father has a distinctive and important role, we would expect to see children growing up in single-mother and lesbian-parent families develop differently from two-parent heterosexual families
McCallum + Golokbok (2004) found that these children do not develop differently from children in two-parent heterosexual families
Studies are HETERONORMATIVE - line of research looking into the role of the father is based on the assumption that babies have two opposite gender parents
Means that fathers may not actually have a distinct role in development at all like studies suggest - as children without them develop the same way
Research into lesbian-parent and single-mother families into infant attachment may not actually clash with findings into the role of the father - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
STRENGTH (COUNTERPOINT to the conflicting evidence argument)
It could be that fathers take on a distinctive role in two-parent heterosexual families, but lesbian-parent and single-mother families adapt to accommodate role played by fathers
e.g. a single-mother could play both the role of the ‘mother’ and the ‘father’, whilst one lesbian-parent could act as the ‘father’ in the family whilst the other acts as the ‘mother’
Means that the father does have a distinct role after all - when present fathers tend to adopt this role, while other families can adapt to not having a father
Research into the role of the father in infant attachment has real world APPLICATION - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
Research findings can be used to offer advice to parents
Parents + prospective parents sometimes struggle in making decisions over who will be the primary attachment figure
Mothers may feel pressured to stay at home because of the stereotypical views of a mother’s and a father’s role
Equally fathers may feel pressured to focus on work instead of parenting - even if the mother would earn more money (puts unnecessary economic pressure on families)
Research into role of the father can be used to reassure parents - e.g. heterosexual parents can be informed that fathers are quite capable of being a primary attachment figure
Lesbian-parent and single-mother families can also be reassured that not having a father around wouldn’t affect a child’s development (McCallum + Golombok 2004)
Means that research into role of the father has real world PRACTICAL VALUE to a vast number of the population - can help ease parental anxiety
Research into the role of the father into an infant’s attachment does not take into account the multitude of EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES that may impact a child’s emotional development - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
Multitude of different factors not taken into account e.g. culture, the father’s beliefs, father’s age, marital intimacy, amount of time father spends away from home etc.
It is difficult to control all of these (possibly) CONFOUNDING VARIABLES - therefore difficult to draw complete conclusions on the role of the father
There may be a BIAS in research into the role of the father - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
WEAKNESS
Preconceptions about how fathers do or should behave can be created by stereotypical accounts and images of parenting roles e.g. those used in advertising
These stereotypes (e.g. fathers are not primary caregivers, fathers are stricter etc.) may cause unintentional OBSEVER BIAS
Observer records what they ‘expect’ (findings therefore SUBJECTIVE) rather than recording OBJECTIVE REALITY
Can be used as a criticism of Grossman et al’s study as well as Field’s study
Decreases the overall RELIABILITY of research findings into role of father, which in turn COMPROMISES the VALIDITY of the corresponding theory
Describe Lorenz’s (1952) procedure on his research into imprinting on animal studies of attachment
- randomly divided large clutch of goose eggs
- Half of the eggs hatched with the mother goose in their natural environment (CONTROL group)
- Other half of eggs hatched in an incubator where first moving object they saw was Lorenz (EXPERIMENTAL group)
Describe Lorenz’s (1952) findings and conclusions on his research into imprinting on animal studies of attachment
- Incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere whereas CONTROL group only followed the mother goose
- When two groups were mixed up CONTROL group continued to follow the mother whilst EXPERIMENTAL group followed Lorenz
- Concluded that this was due to imprinting = bird species that are mobile from birth (e.g. geese) attach to the first moving object they see
- Identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place
- Depending on species critical period can be as brief as a few hours after birth
- If imprinting does not occur during critical period, found that chicks do not attach themselves to a mother figure
Describe Lorenz’s (1952) CASE STUDY into sexual imprinting on animal studies of attachment
- Investigated relationship between imprinting and adult mate preferences
- Observed a peacock that had been reared in a reptile house of a zoo
- First moving objects peacock saw after hatching were giant tortoises
- As and adult the bird would only direct courtship behaviour towards giant tortoises
- Concluded that the peacock had undergone sexual imprinting
There has been research support into Lorenz’s (1952) studies into imprinting on animal studies of attachment - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
There is the existence of support for the concept of imprinting
Regolin + Vallortigara (1995) research:
- Chicks were exposed to simple shape combinations that moved e.g. triangle with a rectangle in front
- made sure this shape was the first moving thing they saw to encourage imprinting
- A range of shape combinations were then moved in front of them and they followed the original most closely (i.e. the one they first saw during the supposed critical period)
Supports the view that young animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object present in the critical period of development - as Lorenz predicted
Lorenz’s (1952) research into imprinting on animal studies of attachment lack GENERALISABILITY to humans - explain why and state whether this is a strength or weakness
WEAKNESS
Lack the ability to GENERALISE Lorenz’s findings and conclusions from birds to humans
Mammalian attachment system quite different and much more complex than that in birds
e.g. in mammals attachment is a two way process (seen in reciprocity + interactional synchrony)
- Its not just the young who are attached to their mothers but the mammalian mothers also show and emotional attachment to their young
This means that it’s most likely not appropriate to generalise Lorenz’s findings to humans - defeats the whole purpose of his research
Some psychologists argue that Lorenz’s (1952) research into imprinting on animal studies of attachment can be APPLIED to human behaviour - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
Although human attachment is very different from that in birds there has been attempts to use the idea that some kind of ‘imprinting’ explains human behaviour
e.g. Seebach (2005) - suggested that computer uses exhibit ‘baby duck syndrome’
‘Baby duck syndrome’ = the attachment formed to a person’s first computer operating system, leading them to reject others
Lorenz’s (1952) research into imprinting on animal studies of attachment has some ETHICAL ISSUES - explain why and state whether this is a strength or weakness
WEAKNESS
Debate on whether this chicks can even consent, or whether consent is even necessary in animal studies
Questionable to attach (somewhat forcibly) young chicks to humans instead of their biological mothers
Humans arguably less capable of teaching these chicks how to survive than their biological same species mother - Lorenz wouldn’t have the full capabilities of raising these chicks appropriately
Therefore questionable whether decreasing these chick’s survival capabilities by making them imprint on humans is worth the value of the research findings
Findings cannot even be fully generalised to human behaviour - was there any point in harming these chicks? What was the point of his research when it can’t even serve its purpose?
Describe Harlow’s (1958) procedure on his study into ‘contact comfort’ on animal studies of attachment
- Observed that newborns kept alone in a bare cage often died, however when given a cloth to cuddle they usually survived
- Tested idea that a soft object serves a similar functions to a mother
- Reared 16 baby monkeys with two wire model ‘mothers’
- In one condition milk was dispensed by the plain-wire mother
- In the second condition milk was dispensed by the cloth-covered mother
Describe Harlow’s (1958) findings and conclusions on his study into ‘contact comfort’ on animal studies of attachment
- Baby monkeys cuddled the cloth-covered mother in preference to the plain-wire mother
- Monkeys sought comfort from cloth mother when frightened (e.g. by a noisy mechanical teddy bear), regardless of which of the mothers dispensed milk
- Concluded that ‘contact comfort’ was of more importance to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour
Describe Harlow’s (1958) procedure and findings on maternally deprived monkeys as adults
- Followed the monkeys who had been deprived of a ‘real’ mother in his contact comfort study into adulthood
- Wanted to investigate if early maternal deprivation had a permanent effect
- Monkeys reared with plain-wire mothers were the most dysfunctional
- However, even those reared with cloth-covered mothers did not develop normal social behaviour
- Monkeys were more aggressive + less sociable
- Bred less often as they (the monkeys) were unskilled in mating
- When deprived monkeys became mothers they often neglected their young -even attacking their children, killing them in some cases
Describe Harlow’s (1958) conclusions on the ‘critical period’ for normal development
- Mother figure had to be introduced to a young monkey within 90 days for an attachment to form
- After the 90 days attachment = impossible and damage done by early deprivation becomes irreversible
Harlow’s (1958) research into ‘contact comfort’ and early deprivation in his animal studies of attachment have real-world value - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
Research has important real world APPLICATION
Helped social workers and clinical psychologists understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in child development
Preventative measures can be taken to prevent poor outcomes of early deprivation (Howe, 1998)
Also now understand the importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and conservation programmes around the word
Means that VALUE of Harlow’s research not just theoretical but also practical
Despite Harlow’s (1958) monkey’s being more similar to humans that Lorenz’s (1952) birds when looking at animal studies of attachment - there is still a limited GENERALISABILITY of his findings to humans - explain why and state whether this is a strength or weakness
WEAKNESS
Rhesus monkeys more similar to humans than Lorenz’s birds, however the human brain and behaviour still much more complex than that of monkeys
Means that it may not be appropriate to GENERALISE Harlow’s findings to humans
His sample is rather genetically different to the species we want to apply his conclusions to
Harlow’s (1958) research into ‘contact comfort’ and early deprivation in his animal studies of attachment has glaring ETHICAL ISSUES - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
WEAKNESS
Consent, psychological harm, later physical harm - many aspects of his research is unethical
There is a likelihood that his deliberate harm to monkeys will have lasting effect - not only are the deprived monkeys harmed, but the children they will raise will most likely suffer harm as well
This GENERATIONAL harm means that Harlow has potentially ruined a whole line of monkey families - all for the sake of research
HOWEVER - arguable that findings of his research hold significant value theoretically and practically - now that we know that early deprivation produces poor outcomes in monkeys (and potentially humans) we can try to mitigate this
Means that pros and cons of Harlow’s research needs to be fully assessed
Does the value of his findings outweigh the harm he had caused - perspective varies from person to person
Who proposed the learning theory of attachment?
Dollard + Miller (1950)
Proposed that caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory
Describe CLASSICAL CONDITIONING in context to caregiver-infant attachment as a learning theory
Classical conditioning = Learning to associate two stimuli together so that we begin to respond to both in the same manner
Baby learns to form an ASSOCIATION between the caregiver (a neutral stimulus) and the feeling of pleasure that comes from being fed (an innate, unconditioned response)
- Unconditioned stimulus = Food
Unconditioned response = Pleasure - Neutral stimulus = Caregiver
Neutral response = No response
The mother is the neutral stimulus as it produces no response
- Unconditioned stimulus + neutral stimulus = Unconditioned response
At first, the baby simply feels comforted by the food, however each times it’s fed the caregiver is there too. The baby quickly ASSOCIATES the caregiver with being fed
- Conditioned stimulus = Caregiver
Conditioned response = Pleasure
The caregiver now stimulates a feeling of pleasure on their own (often referred to as love) - the neutral stimulus has now been conditioned to produce a conditioned response
An attachment between caregiver and infant is now said to have formed
Describe OPERANT CONDITIONING in context to caregiver-infant attachment as a learning theory
Operant conditioning = learning from the consequences of behaviour - behaviour is said to be REINFORCED
Positive reinforcement = if behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, behaviour often likely to be repeated again (referred to as a reward)
Negative reinforcement = When a response switches off something unpleasant
Operant conditioning used to explain why babies cry for comfort:
- Crying leads to response from caregiver e.g. feeding (positive reinforcer = food)
- Every time baby cries this behaviour is reinforced by being fed, baby is more likely to cry again when its hungry
- Baby directs crying for comfort towards caregiver who responds with comforting ‘social suppressor’ behaviour
Reinforcement = two-way process:
- Caregiver receives negative reinforcement when baby cries
- To escape from something unpleasant (the crying), caregiver feeds the baby
Interplay of MUTUAL REINFORCEMENT strengthens an attachment
Explain attachment as a ‘secondary drive’ when referring to the learning theory of attachment
Learning theory draws on concept of DRIVE REDUCTION:
- Hunger = primary drive - innate, biological motivator
- We are motivated to eat in order to reduce the hunger drive
- Sears et al. (1957) - as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them
- Attachment therefore = secondary drive learned by ASSOCIATION between the caregiver and the satisfaction of the primary drive
There is counter-evidence from animal studies when looking into the learning theory explanations of attachment - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
Lack of support for learning theory from studies conducted on animals
E.g. Lorenz’s geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw regardless of whether this object was associated with food
Harlow’s research also found that monkey’s sought comfort over the need for food
When given a choice, Harlow’s monkeys displayed attachment behaviour towards soft surrogate ‘mother’ in preference to a wire one which dispensed milk
Shows that factors other than association with food are important in the formation of attachment
Theory therefore REDUCTIONIST as it simplifies attachment to just food
There is counter-evidence from human studies when looking into the learning theory explanations of attachment - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
Lack of support for learning theory from studies conducted on human babies
e.g. Schaffer + Emerson found that babies tended to form their main attachment to their mother regardless of whether she was the one who usually fed them
Isabella et al. - found that high levels of interactional synchrony predicted the quality of attachment (see caregiver infant interactions)
These factors are not related to feeding
Again suggests that food is not the main factor in the formation of human attachments
Further evidence that theory is REDUCTIONIST - attachment is not solely based on food
Some psychologists argue that there may be some elements of conditioning that are involved in some aspects of attachment - state whether this is a strength or a weakness of the learning theory explanations of attachment and explain why
STRENGTH
Seems unlikely that association with food plays a central role in attachment (due to human + animal studies), but conditioning itself may still play a role
E.g. a baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult, which could influence a baby’s choice of their main attachment figure
Means that some aspects of the learning theory may still be useful in understanding the development of attachments
Both classical and operant conditioning explanations see the baby playing a relatively passive role - state whether this is a strength or weakness of the learning theory explanations of attachment and explain why
WEAKNESS
Learning theory depicts babies as simply responding to associations with comfort or reward
However research shows that babies actually take a very active role in the interactions that produce attachment (Feldman + Eidelman 2007)
Caregiver-infant interactions theory further support idea that babies have an active role in attachment formation - both baby and caregiver initiate interactions and take turns doing so
Means that conditioning may not be an adequate explanation for any aspect of attachment as it dismisses the active role of the baby in attachment formation
Some psychologists argue that the social learning theory is a better explanation for attachment formation than classical and operant conditioning - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
Hay + Vespo (1988) - suggest that parents teach children by modelling attachment behaviours e.g. hugging
Also argue that parents also encourage loving behaviour by showing approval when babies display their own attachment behaviours e.g. cuddling
Social learning perspective has further advantage - it is based around two-way interaction between baby and adult
Therefore social learning theory does not clash with research into the importance of reciprocity or the caregiver-infant interactions theory - unlike classical + operant conditioning
Suggests that the social learning theory is perhaps better suited as an explanation for attachment rather than classical + operant conditioning
What are the 3 aspects of Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
- Monotropy
- Social releasers + the critical period
- The internal working model
Why did Bowlby reject the learning theory explanations for attachment formation?
Argued that if food was the focus of attachment, then babies would easily form attachments to whoever fed them - however this was clearly not the case
Looked at work of Lorenz + Harlow (animal studies of attachment) and proposed an EVOLUTIONARY explanation
Argued that attachment = innate system that gives a survival advantage by keeping young animals (including humans) safe by ensuring they stay close to adult caregivers
Describe Bowlby’s monotropic theory in terms of:
- Monotropy
- The law of continuity
- The law of accumulated separation
‘Mono’ = one
‘Tropic’ = leaning towards
Theory described as monotropic because of great emphasis on a child’s attachment to one particular caregiver
Believed that attachment to this one caregiver is different and more important than others
Bowlby called this figure the ‘mother’ - however did not need to be the biological mother, or even a woman
Believed that the more time a baby spent with the mother-figure, the better:
- Law of continuity = the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of attachment
- Law of accumulated separation = the effects of every separation from the mother add up “and the safest dose is therefore a zero dose”
Describe Bowlby’s monotropic theory in terms of:
- Social releasers and the critical period
Babies born with a set of innate ‘cute’ behaviours (e.g. smiling + cooing) to encourage attention from adults
These behaviours = social releasers because their purpose is to activate adult social interaction and so make an adult attach to the baby
Attachment = reciprocal process - believed both mother and baby are ‘hard-wired’ to be attached
Interplay between adult and baby attachment systems (reciprocity) gradually builds relationship between adult and caregiver
Proposed a critical period around 6 months when infant attachment system is active
Included a SENSITIVE PERIOD - child is maximally sensitive at 6 months and this possibly extends up the the age of 2 (18 month sensitive period)
If attachment not formed in this time, child will find it much harder to form one later
Describe Bowlby’s monotropic theory in terms of:
- The internal working model
Internal working model = mental representation of the relationship to our primary attachment figure
Internal working model affects our future relationships because it carries our perception of what relationships are like
e.g. A child whose first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to form an expectation that all relationships are as loving and reliable
Child whose first relationship involves poor treatment will tend to form further poor relationships in which they expect such treatment and/or treat others in that way
Internal working model also affects the child’s later ability to be a parent themselves
People tend to base parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being parented - explains why children from functional families tend to have similar families themselves
Bowlby’s concept of monotropy lacks VALIDITY - explain why and state whether this is a strength or weakness of his theory on attachment
WEAKNESS
Schaffer + Emerson = found that although most babies did attach to one person, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time, usually in COLLECTIVIST societies
Although the first attachment does seem to have a strong influence of later behaviour, this may simply mean that the attachment is stronger, not necessarily different in quality from the child’s other attachments
E.g. attachments to family members (i.e. secondary attachment figures) provide all the same key qualities as a primary attachment figure - emotional support, safe base etc.
Means that Bowlby may have been incorrect that there is a unique quality and importance of a child’s primary attachment
COMPROMISES VALIDITY of his theory
Bowlby’s monotropic theory has research support for the importance of social releasers - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
Clear evidence that cute baby behaviours are designed to elicit a response from caregivers
Brazelton et al. (1975) :
- Observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers
- Then instructed the babies’ primary attachment figure to ignore their babies’ social releasers
- Babies became increasingly distressed once ignored + some eventually curled up and lay motionless
Supporting research illustrates the role of social releasers in emotional development
Suggests that social releasers are important in the process of attachment development, as Bowlby suggested
Bowlby’s monotropic theory has research support for the importance of the internal working model - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
Internal working model predicts the patterns of attachment will be passed from one generation to the next
Bailey et al. (2007) :
- Assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their one-year-old babies
- Measured the mothers’ attachment to their own primary attachment figures (i.e. their parents)
- Also assessed the attachment quality of the babies
- Found that mothers with poor attachment to their own primary attachment figures were more likely to have poorly attached babies
Findings support Bowlby’s idea that a mother’s ability to form an attachment to their baby is influenced by their own internal working model
Some psychologists argue that Bowlby overstated the importance of the internal working model in forming later attachments - explain whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to research support for internal working model)
Most likely other important influences that affect later attachments besides the internal working model
Kornienko, 2016 - believed that genetic differences in anxiety + sociability affect social behaviour (and therefore later attachments) in babies and adults - BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Genetic differences could also impact parenting ability (Kornienko, 2016)
Means that Bowlby’s theory may be REDUCTIONIST - places importance solely on the internal working model at the expense of other important factors when looking at attachment formation
Some feminists are concerned with the perspective provided by Bowlby’s monotropic theory into attachment formation - discuss their concerns
Laws of continuity + accumulated separation suggest that mothers who work may negatively affect their child’s emotional development
Feminists e.g. Burman (1994) - point out that this belief sets up mothers to take the blame for anything that goes wrong for the child in the future
Theory possibly reinforces TRADITIONALIST views + a potentially harmful stereotype
Theory also gives people an excuse to restrict mothers’ activities e.g. returning to work
HOWEVER:
Bowlby’s ideas have many real world applications e.g. key workers in day care who build an attachment with particular babies
Bowlby stated that the mother did not have to be a baby’s biological mother, or even a woman - arguably not the theory itself that feminists should be concerned about, its the MISINTERPRETATION of his theory that may fuel negative stereotypes
Altogether, its unclear whether Bowlby’s theory has done more harm than good - answer depends of the perspective you’re looking at
What is Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’?
- CONTROLLED OBSERVATION procedure
- Used to measure the security of attachment a baby displays towards a caregiver
- Takes place under LAB conditions (i.e. variables strictly CONTROLLED)
- Two-way mirror and/or cameras used so that psychologists can discreetly observe the baby’s behaviour
What were the behaviours used to judge attachment in Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’?
- Proximity seeking = a baby with a good quality attachment will stay fairly close to a caregiver
- Exploration + secure base behaviour = good attachment enables a baby to feel confident to explore, using their caregiver as a secure base i.e. a point of contact that will make them feel safe
- Stranger anxiety = One of the signs of becoming closely attached is a display of anxiety when a stranger approaches
- Separation anxiety = A sign of being closely attached is protest at separation from the caregiver
- Response to reunion = babies who are securely attached greet the caregivers return with pleasure and seek comfort
Describe the 7 stages of Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ - include which behaviours were measured in each stage
Each episode lasts 3 mins
Beginning = Baby + caregiver enter an unfamiliar playroom
- Stage 1: Baby is encouraged to explore - tests exploration + secure base
- Stage 2 : A stranger comes in, talks to the caregiver and approaches the baby - tests stranger anxiety
- Stage 3 : Caregiver leaves baby and stranger together - tests separation + stranger anxiety
- Stage 4 : Caregiver returns and stranger leaves - tests reunion behaviour and exploration/secure base
- Stage 5 : The caregiver leaves the baby alone - tests separation anxiety
- Stage 6 : The stranger returns - tests stranger anxiety
- Stage 7 : The caregiver returns and is reunited with the baby - tests reunion behaviour
What were the 3 styles of attachment measured by Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’?
- Secure attachment
- Insecure-avoidant attachment
- Insecure-resistant attachment
Describe a baby with a secure attachment (Type B) style. What kind of behaviours would they display in Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’
- Shows moderate stranger + separation anxiety
- Readily comforted by caregiver when reunited
- Proximity seeking/secure base: explores happily while keeping eye on caregiver
- Usually indifferent to stranger when caregiver is present but is wary of stranger when alone
- Associated with psychologically healthy outcomes
- Around 60-75% of British babies classed as securely attached
Describe a baby with a insecure-avoidant attachment (Type A) style. What kind of behaviours would they display in Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’
- Shows little to no stranger + separation anxiety
- Characterised by a ‘weak’ attachment to caregiver
- Explores freely but does not keep proximity to caregiver or show secure base behaviour
- Make little effort to make contact when reuniting with caregiver and may even avoid such contact
- Shows no interest in caregiver and can easily play with and be comforted by the stranger
- Around 20-25% of British babies classed as insecure-avoidant
Describe a baby with a insecure-resistant attachment (Type C) style. What kind of behaviours would they display in Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’
- Shows very high stranger + separation anxiety
- Does not explore much and keeps close proximity to caregiver
- Extremely distressed by stranger with or without caregiver being present
- Intense reaction to caregiver’s absence - baby clearly distressed
- Baby resists comfort from caregiver when reunited, even if desired
- Around 3% of British babies classed as insecure-resistant
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ has good PREDICTIVE VALIDITY - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
Outcome of Strange Situation can predict a number of aspects of a baby’s later development
Large body of research from multiple researchers shows that babies assessed as Type B (secure) tend to have better outcomes than others - both in later childhood + adulthood
Wilson + Smith (1998) = Found that secure children unlikely to be involved in bullying, insure-avoidant most likely to be bullied and insecure resistant most likely to be the bullies
Ward et al. (2006) = Found that securely attached babies go on to have better mental health in adulthood
Research conducted suggests that those babies assessed as having insecure-resistant and these not falling into Types A, B or C tend to have the worst outcomes
Suggests that the Strange Situation measures something real and meaningful in a baby’s development - can be used as a general prediction of a baby’s later attachments
Vast amount of research further supports this idea - there’s so much research support that the predictive quality of these attachment styles cannot just be due to chance
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ has good INTER-RATER RELIABILITY - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
STRENGTH
High degree of agreement between observers during the Strange Situation
Bick et al (2012) :
- Tested inter-rater reliability for the Strange Situation for a team of trained observers
- Observers found agreement on attachment type in 94% of cases
High level of RELIABILITY may be because procedure takes place in highly CONTROLLED LAB conditions
Behaviours measured also include large movements (e.g. stranger anxiety) so are easy to observe e.g. anxious babies cry and crawl away from strangers
Means that we can be confident that attachment type as assessed by the Strange Situation does not depend of SUBJECTIVE judgements
Some psychologists argue that Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ does not actually measure attachment - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to good predictive validity argument)
Strange Situation clearly measures something important to a baby’s later development, but not all psychologists believe this something is attachment
Kagan (1982) - argues that genetically influenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment behaviour in the Strange Situation and later development
Means that Strange Situation may actually be measuring a baby’s anxiety levels, rather than their attachment itself - lacks INTERNAL VALIDITY
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ may be culture-bound - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
WEAKNESS
Strange situation may not be a VALID measure of attachment in different cultural contexts
Strange situation developed in Britain + US i.e. INDIVIDUALIST cultures - so may only be valid measure of attachment in similar cultures i.e. the West
Babies have different experiences in different cultures which may affect their responses to the Strange Situation
e.g. Takahashi (1986):
- Measured attachment in Japanese babies using Strange situation (COLLECTIVIST culture)
- Found that babies displayed high levels of separation anxiety, so disproportionate number classified as insecure-resistant
- Takahashi suggests that anxiety response not due to high rates of attachment insecurity, but due to unusual nature of the experience in Japan where mother-baby separation is very rare
Means that the Strange Situation cannot be APPLICABLE in other cultural contexts
If used outside of Europe + US could incorrectly label a baby’s attachment style due to it being based on the WESTERN PERSPECTIVE of attachment
Individualist perspective of being securely attached would be different from the collectivist perspective
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ is arguably unethical - explain why and state whether this is a strength or weakness
WEAKNESS
Strange Situation puts babies under deliberate emotional distress (by separating from their caregiver, introducing a stranger etc.)
Therefore causes some psychological harm to the baby
HOWEVER:
Could argue that findings from Strange Situation overrides the temporary distress baby is put under
Findings have significantly helped psychologists further their understanding of infant attachment
Findings also have good PREDICITVE VALIDITY - can be used to mitigate negative outcomes for insecurely attached babies (e.g. therapy)
Therefore need to balance the pros and cons of the Strange Situation - does the benefits outweigh the cost?
Some psychologists have identified other attachment types in Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ - discuss their findings
Main + Solomon (1986) :
- Identified 4th category of attachment - a disorganised (Type D) attachment
- Type D = mixture of resistant and avoidant behaviours
However, Type D babies unusual and have generally experienced some sort of severe neglect or abuse
Found that most Type D babies will go on to develop psychological disorders by adulthood
Means that original Strange Situation may not have identified all attachment types, but it has found the main ones - any others found are extremely rare and are most likely due to extreme circumstances
Can actually be used as strength for the study - Strange Situation is flexible enough that it can be used to find attachment styles outside the ones originally identified
Describe IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s procedure into cultural variations in attachment
Aim: To investigate the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant + insecure-resistant attachments across and within countries
- Located 32 studies of attachment where Strange Situation had been used to find proportions of attachment types in babies
- Studies conducted in 8 countries - 15 were in the US
- Overall studies yielded results for 1990 children
- Data from these studies were META-ANALYSED
-Results of studies combined and analysed together, weighing each study for its sample size
Describe IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s findings into cultural variations in attachment
- In all countries secure attachment was the most common classification
- However, proportion of secure attachment varied between countries - 75% securely attached in Britain compared to 50% in China
- In INDIVIDUALIST cultures rates of insecure-resistant attachment similar to Ainsworth’s original sample - all under 14%
- In COLLECTIVIST cultures rate of insecure-resistant attachment above Ainsworth’s original sample - above 25% (where rates of insecure-avoidant was reduced)
- Variations between results of studies within the same country were 150% greater then those between different countries
- E.g. In the US one study found only 46% securely attached compared to one sample as high as 90%
Describe an Italian study into cultural variations in attachment
Simonelli et al. (2014):
- Conducted study in Italy to see whether proportions of babies of different attachment types still matches those found in older studies
- Assessed 76 babies aged 12 months using the Strange Situation
- Found 50% secure, with 36% insecure-avoidant
- This is a lower rate of secure attachment and a higher rate of insecure-avoidant that has been found in many modern studies
- Suggests this is because increasing number of mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional childcare
- Findings suggest that patterns of attachment types are not static but vary in line with cultural change
Describe a Korean study into cultural variations in attachment
Jin et al. (2012):
- Conducted study to compare proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies
- Strange Situation used to assess 87 babies
- Overall proportions of insecure and secure babies similar to those in most countries, with most babies being secure
- However most insecurely attached babies were resistant and only one baby was avoidant
- Distribution of Korean babies similar to those found in Japan (IJzendoorn + Kroonenberg)
- Japan and Korea have similar child rearing styles - could be used to explain similarity in proportions of attachment types
Describe the overall conclusions into cultural variations in attachment
- Secure attachment seems to be the norm in wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal
- Secure attachment therefore evolutionary universal norm
- However, research also suggests that cultural practices also have an influence on attachment type
Most research into cultural variations in attachment used indigenous researchers who are able to speak the native language - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
Researchers often had same cultural background as the ppts
e.g. IJzendoorn + Kroonenberg included research by a German team (Grossman et al) + Takahashi who is Japanese
Means that many of the potential problems in cross-cultural research can be avoided e.g. misunderstandings between researcher + ppts because of language barrier or difficulties in communicating instructions
Also avoids RESEARCHER BIAS because of one nation’s stereotypes of another
Means that there is a very high chance that researchers + ppts communicated successfully - enhancing the VALIDITY of the data collected
However, not all research into cultural variations in attachment used indigenous researchers - state whether this a strength or a weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS (can COUNTERPOINT previous indigenous researchers argument)
E.g. Morelli + Tronick (1991) = were outsiders from America when they studied child rearing and patterns of attachment in the Efe of Zaire
Their data may have been affected by difficulties in gathering data from ppts outside their own culture - miscommunication, researcher bias etc.
Means that not all research into cultural variations in attachment have the same degree of VALIDITY - cannot reliably make cross-cultural comparisons from data in these studies
Cross-cultural research into cultural variations in attachment, including META-ANALYSES, may be affected by CONFOUNDING VARIABLES - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
WEAKNESS
Studies conducted in different countries not usually matched for METHODOLOGY when compared in reviews or meta-analysed
Sample characteristics e.g. poverty + social class can confound variables (PPT VARIABLES) as well as age
Environmental variables can also differ between studies + confound results e.g. the size of the room and the availability of interesting toys
Babies may appear to explore more in studies conducted in small rooms with attractive toys compared to large, bare rooms
Less visible proximity seeking because of room size (e.g. very large rooms may put extra distance between caregiver + baby) may make a baby more likely to be classified as avoidant
Babies may be wrongly classified due to environmental variables
Means that we need to be careful in comparing non-matched cross-cultural studies as there is no STANDARDISED PROCEDURE being used between countries
Cross-cultural research into cultural variations in attachment are said to have an IMPOSED ETIC - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
WEAKNESS
Cross-cultural research is trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another
Strange Situation was an assessment method designed in the US and based on a British theory (Bowlby) - some question whether it is VALID to apply this theory and technique between countries and cultures
Emic = cultural uniqueness
Etic = cross-cultural universality
IMPOSED ETIC = occurs when we assume idea or technique that works in one cultural context will work in another
E.g. In Britain + US lack of affection during caregiver reunion may indicate avoidant attachment, but in Germany such behaviour would be interpreted as independence rather than insecurity
Means that aspects of the Strange Situation may not work in certain cultural contexts
Therefore behaviours measured by Strange Situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts - making comparisons across them meaningless as there is no STANDARD interpretation of behaviour
The meta-analysis of cross-cultural studies in attachment created an overall large sample size when investigating cultural variations in attachment - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
Sample size = 1,990 children used
Sample can be considered more REPRESENTATIVE as results generally not affected by anomalous results
Some psychologists offer alternative explanations for cross-cultural differences in attachment - discuss their perspective
Cross-cultural research found very similar attachment types in different countries (i.e. majority securely attached) - Bowlby’s theory explains this is because attachment is an innate and universal
IJzendoorn + Kroonenberg = argue that its is global media that explains this similarity:
Global media presents particular view of how parents and babies are raised - may override traditional cultural differences in the way children are brought up
Means that Bowlby’s theory may be outdated in explaining universal attachment behaviours - rise of social media may be the more modern explanation
Describe Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation in terms of:
- Separation vs deprivation
- Believed that continual presence of care from mother or mother-substitute is essential for normal psychological development - both emotionally + intellectually
- Being separated from mother in early childhood will have serious consequences
- Separation = Child is not in the presence of the primary attachment figure
- Separation only becomes issue when child is deprived of emotional care
- Deprivation = Child does not receive emotional care from primary attachment figure
- Caregiver can be physically present but child can still be maternally deprived e.g. the mother is present but depressed
- Brief separations, particularly when child is with substitute caregiver who can provide emotional care, are not as significant for development
- Extended separations can lead to deprivation, which causes psychological harm
Describe Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation in terms of:
- The critical period
- First two-and-a-half years of life = critical period for psychological development
- If child is separated from mother in absence of suitable substitute care (and so deprived of emotional care) for extended period of time during critical period then psychological damage inevitable
- Believed there was a continuing risk up to the age of 5
Describe Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation in terms of:
- Effects on intellectual development
- Believed if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would experience delayed intellectual development
- Maternal deprivation characterised by low IQ
- Demonstrated in studies of adoption e.g. Goldfarb (1947):
- Found lower IQ in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and therefore had a higher standard of emotional care
Describe Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation in terms of:
- Effects on emotional development
- Identified AFFECTIONLESS PSYCHOPATHY as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others
- Affectionless psychopathy may be linked with maternal deprivation
- Prevents a person developing fulfilling relationships + associated with criminality
- Affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate feelings of victims and so lack remorse for their actions
Describe the procedure of Bowlby’s ‘44 thieves’ study into the link between maternal deprivation and affectionless psychopathy
- Sample = 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
- ‘Thieves’ were interviewed for signs of emotionless psychopathy - e.g. lack of affection, lack of guilt about actions + lack of empathy for victims
- Families also interviewed to establish whether the ‘thieves’ had prolonged early separations from their mothers
- Sample compared to a CONTROL GROUP of 44 non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people
Describe the findings and conclusions of Bowlby’s ‘44 thieves’ study into the link between maternal deprivation and affectionless psychopathy
- 14 out of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths
- 12 out of 14 of the affectionless psychopaths had experienced prolonged separations (and were therefore deprived) from their mothers in the first 2 years of their life (i.e. the critical period)
- Only 5 out of the 30 remaining thieves (that weren’t labelled as affectionless psychopaths) had experienced prolonged separations
- Only 2 out of 44 in the control group had experienced long separations and 0/44 were labelled as affectionless psychopaths
- Concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation is based on flawed evidence - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
WEAKNESS
Theory based on poor quality evidence
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study flawed because it was Bowlby himself who carried out both the family interviews + the assessments for affectionless psychopathy
Left him open to RESEARCHER BIAS - he already had expectations on which teenagers would show psychopathy, leading him to subconsciously interpret the findings in his favour
Study also used RETROSPECTIVE SELF REPORT DATA - asking families to recall past memories on maternal separation unreliable as memories often SUBJECTIVE and DISTORTED
Other sources of evidence equally flawed - Bowlby influenced by findings of Goldfarb’s research on the development of deprived children in wartime orphanages:
Goldfarb’s research had issues with CONFOUNDING VARIABLES because children experienced very early trauma and institutional care alongside prolonged separation from primary caregivers
Means that Bowlby’s original sources of evidence for maternal deprivation had serious flaws - COMPROMISED VALIDITY of his whole theory
There is some concrete evidence supporting Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why
STRENGTH (COUNTERPOINT to flawed evidence argument)
New line of research provides some modest support for long-term effects of maternal deprivation
Levy et al (2003):
- Showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development
- However maternal deprivation only affected social development, not other aspects
Means that, although Bowlby initially relied on flawed evidence to support his theory, there are still concrete sources for his ideas
Some psychologists argue that Bowlby’s research into maternal deprivation measured privation instead of deprivation - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
WEAKNESS
Rutter (1981) : drew important distinction between two types of early negative experience
Deprivation = loss of a primary attachment figure after an attachment has formed
Privation = failure to form any attachment in the first place - may take place if child is brought up in any institutional care (e.g. Goldfarb’s research)
Rutter argued that severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation may actually be a result of privation instead
Therefore supporting research, e.g. the children studied by Goldfarb, may actually have been ‘prived’ rather that ‘deprived’
Similarly, many children in the 44 thieves study had disrupted early lives (e.g. spells in hospital) and may never have formed strong attachments
Bowlby’s 44 thieves sample therefore prived instead of deprived - study lacked INTERNAL VALIDITY as he was measuring privation when he actually wanted to investigated deprivation
Means that Bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation in children’s development, as this would have actually been caused by privation instead
Some psychologists argue that Bowlby’s view on the critical period regarding maternal deprivation was incorrect - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
WEAKNESS
For Bowlby - damage inevitable if child had not formed an attachment within first two and a half years of life
However, there is evidence to suggest that good quality aftercare can prevent all or most of this damage:
- Koluchova (1976) reported the case of the Czech twins
- Twins experienced very severe physical and emotional abuse from age of 18 months up until 7 years (past critical + sensitive period)
- Although twins severely damaged emotionally by their early experience they received excellent care
- By their teens they had recovered fully
Means that Bowlby may be incorrect on the critical period, as long lasting harm has been evidenced to not be inevitable even in the cases of severe maternal deprivation/privation
When good quality aftercare given, damage from maternal deprivation seemingly ‘reversed’
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation has real life practical APPLICATION which has been valuable for society - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
STRENGTH
Some national governments offer more financial support for young families in terms of maternity + paternity leave to mitigate risks of maternal deprivation
E.g. Sweden offers 480 days parental leave, clearly highlighting commitment to support children’s early attachment experiences
Means that theory has real life practical applications which has positively impacted a giant proportion of the general population
Some psychologists have struggled to replicate Bowlby’s 44 thieves study in terms of his findings - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
Most attempts to replicate 44 thieves study fail to produce similar results
E.g. Lewis (1954) - looked at 500 young people and found no association between early separation and later psychopathy
Further evidence that Bowlby’s findings may have been affected by RESEARCHER BIAS
Means that Bowlby’s study lacks REPRODUCIBILTY, COMPROMISING the VALIDITY of this theory
However (COUNTERPOINT):
More recent research (e.g. Gao et al, 2010) has partially supported Bowlby by showing that poor quality maternal care was associated with high rates of psychopathy in adults
HOWEVER correlation does not equal causation - therefore conflicting evidence for Bowlby’s maternal deprivation still a point of argument between psychologists
Describe Rutter et al’s (2011) procedure in his research into Romanian orphans and the effects of institutionalisation
Aim : to investigate the extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions
- Followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans for many years as part of the English and Romanian adoptee (ERA) study
- Orphans were adopted by families in the UK
- Physical, cognitive + emotional development assessed at ages 4,6,11,15 and 22-25 years
- Group of 52 children from the UK (not institutionalised) adopted around the same time served as a CONTROL GROUP
Describe Rutter et al’s (2011) findings in his research into Romanian orphans and the effects of institutionalisation
- When children first arrived to UK, half of the adoptees showed signs of delayed intellectual development
- Majority of Romanian children severely undernourished
At age 11 adopted children showed differential rates of recovery related to age of adoption:
- Children adopted before age of 6 months = mean IQ of 102
- Children adopted between 6 months and 2 years old = mean IQ of 86
- Children adopted after 2 years old = mean IQ of 77
- IQ differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al, 2010)
- ADHD more common in 15 and 22-25 year old samples (Kennedy et al, 2016)
Attachment outcomes also related to whether adoption took place before or after 6 months (i.e. before or after CRITICAL PERIOD had begun):
- Children adopted after 6 months showed particular attachment style called DISINHIBITED ATTACHMENT
- Symptoms = attention seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults both familiar and unfamiliar (i.e. no stranger anxiety)
- Children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment
Describe Zeanah et al’s (2005) procedure in their research into disinhibited attachment in institutionalised Romanian orphans
- Conducted the Bucharest early intervention (BEI) project
- Assessed attachment style in 95 Romanian children aged 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutional care (90% on average)
- Compared to CONTROL GROUP of 50 children who had never lived in an institution
- Attachment type measured using the Strange Situation
- Carers also asked about unusual social behaviours e.g. clinginess and attention seeking directed inappropriately towards all adults (behaviours seen in disinhibited attachment)
Describe Zeanah et al’s (2005) findings in their research into disinhibited attachment in institutionalised Romanian orphans
- 74% of control group classified as securely attached by Strange Situation compared to 19% of institutionalised group
- Disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children as opposed to less that 20% of the control group
Describe Rutter et al’s conclusions on the effects of institutionalisation on Romanian orphans in context to:
- Disinhibited attachment
- Children who spent their early lives in institutions often showed signs of disinhibited attachment
- Disinhibited attachment highly unusual behaviour as they do not show stranger anxiety when most children their age do
- Disinhibited attachment = adaptation to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive + critical period for attachment formation
- In poor quality institutions a child may have 50 carers but doesn’t spend enough time with any of them to form a secure attachment
Describe Rutter et al’s conclusions on the effects of institutionalisation on Romanian orphans in context to:
- Intellectual disability
- In Rutter’s study most children showed signs of intellectual disability when they arrived in Britain
- However, most of those adopted before age of 6 months caught up with control group by 4 years old
- Appears that, like emotional development, damage to intellectual development due to institutionalisation can be recovered provided that adoption occurs before 6 months (i.e. before the critical period)
Rutter et al’s research into the effects of institutionalisation in Romanian orphans has real world practical APPLICATION - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
STRENGTH
Findings have been applied to improve conditions for children growing outside their family homes
Langton (2006) = argued findings improved psychologist’s understanding of the effects of early institutional care and how to prevent the worst of these effects
Led to improvements in the conditions experienced by children growing up in the care system
E.g. children’s homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child - instead children have on or two ‘key workers’ who play a central role in their emotional care (prevents development of disinhibited attachment)
Institutional care now seen as an undesirable option for looked after children - many being shut down in favour for foster-care
Considerable effort made to accommodate children in foster care or have them adopted instead
Means that Rutter’s research has had a real life positive contribution to society - its application to the real world has improved the living conditions of many children in care
Rutter’s research into the effects of institutionalisation on Romanian children has less CONFOUNDING VARIABLES than similar studies conducted on orphans - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
STRENGTH
Many orphan studies before Rutter, however most of these conducted during wartime (e.g. WW2)
These previous studies suffered confounding variables e.g. trauma - difficult to disentangle the effects of neglect, physical abuse and bereavement from those of institutional care
These previous studies lacked INTERNAL VALIDITY - did not know whether they were investigating trauma or institutionalisation
However, Romanian children in Rutter’s study had been handed over by loving parents who couldn’t afford to keep them rather than from abuse
Means that Rutter’s findings much less likely to be confounded by other negative early experiences - had HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY
Some psychologists argue that Rutter’s study into the effects on institutionalisation in Romanian orphans were effected by CONFOUNDING VARIABLES - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to lack of confounding variables argument)
Studying children from Romanian orphanages may have introduced different confounding variables
Quality of care in Romanian institutions was extremely poor - children received very little intellectual stimulation or comfort
Means that harmful effects seen in Rutter’s study of Romanian orphans may represent the effects of POOR institutional care rather than institutional care itself - Rutter’s study may actually lack INTERNAL VALIDITY
May produce different findings if we investigated a better quality institution
Rutter’s study into the effects of institutionalisation in Romanian orphans lacks adult data - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
Latest data from ERA study only looked at adults up to age 25
Means that we do not currently have any data on true long-term effects of early institutional care
Findings lacks extremely useful and interesting data into the prevalence of mental health problems and ppt’s success in forming and maintaining platonic and romantic relationships in the future due to institutionalisation
Will take a very long time to gather this data due to the LONGITUDINAL design of this study
Means that it will be soe time before we know the true effects of institutionalisation - current findings only scratch the surface, it may be possible that late-adopted children may ‘catch-up’ intellectually in later life
Rutter’s research into the effects of institutionalisation is SOCIALLY SENSITIVE - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
Study is SOCIALLY SENSTITIVE because findings show that late-adopted children typically have poor developmental problems
Results were published whilst the children were growing up - means that parents, teachers or anyone else who knew them may have treated the adopted children differently as a result
Difference in treatment may have even caused a SELF FUFILLING PROPHECY - adopted children believed that they had poor developmental outcomes because of research findings and so this became true due to this mindset
Means that costs of publishing Rutter’s findings need to be balanced with the benefits - arguable that findings have high, real world practical value which outweighs this cost
Explain the importance of the internal working model (Bowlby, 1969) in the formation of relationships in later life
- Baby’s first relationship with primary attachment figure creates a mental template for all future childhood and adult relationships
- Quality of baby’s first attachment crucial because this template will powerfully effect the nature of future relationships
- Baby’s whose first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to seek out similar functional relationships and behave functionally with them
- Child with bad experiences of their first attachment will bring these bad experiences to bear on later relationships - may display insecure-avoidant or insecure-resistant behaviour towards friends and partners
Describe research into the link between attachment type and relationships in childhood
- Kerns (1994) - found that securely attached babies tend to go on to form the best quality friendships whereas insecurely attached babies later have friendship difficulties
- Wilson + Smith (1998) = investigated link between attachment type any bullying behaviour:
- Assessed attachment type and bullying behaviour using a standard questionnaires
- Sample: 196 children aged 7-11 from London
- Found that secure children unlikely to be involved in bullying, insecure-avoidant most likely to be the victims and insecure resistant children most likely to be bullies
Describe Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) study into the link between attachment type and adult romantic relationships
- Analysed 620 replies to a ‘love quiz’ printed in an American local newspaper
- Quiz had 3 sections: first assessed current or most important relationship, second part assessed general love experiences (e.g. number of partners), third assessed attachment type
- 56% of respondents identified as securely attached, 25% secure-avoidant and 1% insecure resistant
- Securely attached respondents most likely to have good and longer-lasting romantic experiences
- Insecure-avoidant respondents tended to reveal jealously and fear of intimacy
Findings suggest that patterns of attachment behaviour also reflected in later romantic relationships
Describe McCarthy’s (1999) study into the link between attachment type and adult relationships
- Studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when they were babies to establish their early attachment type
- Those assessed as securely attached babies had the best adult friendships and romantic relationships
- Those assessed as insecure-resistant as babies had problems maintaining friendships
- Those assessed as insecure-avoidant as babies struggled with intimacy and romantic relationships
- Concluded that infant attachment style had a significant impact on later adult relationships
Describe Bailey et al’s (2007) study into the link between the internal working model and adult parenthood
- Looked at attachments of 99 mothers to their 1 year old babies as well as mothers’ own attachment to their primary caregiver (i.e. their parents)
- Assessed mother-infant attachment using the Strange Situation
- Mother’s own attachment to their own mother assessed using an adult attachment interview
- Majority of women had same attachment classification both to their babies and their own mothers - e.g. mothers who have poor attachment to their primary caregiver also had a poorly attached baby
- Concluded that internal working model served as a mental template for own parenting behaviours in adulthood
There is vast quantities of research support on the influence of early attachments on later relationships - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why
STRENGTH
Reviews of evidence (e.g. Fearon + Roisman, 2017) concluded that early attachment CONSISTENTLY predicts later attachment, emotional well-being and attachment to own children
How strong the relationship is between early attachment + later relationships depends on the attachment type and the aspect of later development = insecure resistant associated with fairly mild disadvantages whilst disorganised attachment associated with later mental disorder
Means that research evidence supports idea of GOOD PREDICITIVE VALIDITY - can use early attachment to predict later relationships + put preventative measures to help those with disadvantageous attachment styles
Not all research into the influence of early attachments on later relationships has found a link between the two - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to supporting research argument)
E.g. Becker-Stroll et al (2008) :
- Conducted the Regensburg longitudinal study
- Followed 43 individuals from 1 year of age
- At age 16 attachment assessed using the adult attachment interview
- Found no evidence of continuity between early attachment at later life attachments
Means that its not clear to what extent the quality of early attachment predicts later relationships - may be other important factors not taken into account e.g. genetics
Studies into the influence of early attachments on later relationships are often RETROSPECTIVE SELF REPORT DATA - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
Attachment in most studies assessed RETROSPECTIVELY
Most research NOT LONGITUDINAL - does not assess attachment in early life and then revisit the same person in later life
Instead researchers often ask adults or adolescents ppts questions about their past relationship with their parents + identify attachment types with this (e.g. Hazan + Shaver’s ‘love quiz’)
Presents two VALIDITY issues:
- Asking questions relies on the honesty (ppts may show social desirability bias) + accurate perception of ppts
- Very hard to know whether what is being assessed is early attachment or adult attachment - ppts may answer questions whilst subconsciously being influenced by relationship with their parents as an adult rather than the relationship they had as a child (e.g. Regensburg longitudinal study)
Could result in studies lacking INTERNAL VALIDITY
Means that measures of early attachment used in most studies may have produced CONFOUNDED data - COMPROMISES VALIDITY + possibly makes most supporting research findings meaningless
Findings from studies into the influence of early attachment on later relationships many have been affected by CONFOUNDING VARIABLES - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why
WEAKNESS
Some studies do assess attachment in infancy (e.g. McCarthy, Bailey et al) - therefore the assessment of attachment in these studies are VALID
However, even these studies may face validity issues because associations between attachment quality and later development may be affected by other confounding variables (just because attachment of early attachment valid doesn’t mean that the correlation between them is)
E.g. (BIOLOGICAL APPROACH) genetically-influenced personality may be an influence on both attachment quality and later development
Means that we can never be entirely sure whether it is early attachment and not some other factor that is influencing later development (correlation does not always equal causation)
The link found between early attachment and later relationships should be carefully assessed in terms of risk and opportunity - discuss this point
Clarke and Clarke (1998) - argued that influence of early attachment on later relationships is at most PROBABLISITC
Means that insecure attachment doesn’t guarantee poorer later relationships - its just more likely for people with this attachment type (could also argue converse for securely attached people)
But, by knowing someone’s early attachment type we have an opportunity to intervene and help their development to mitigate any harm to future relationships (e.g. through therapy)
However, those with insecure attachment types may become pessimistic about their future development due to research findings and create a SELF-FUFILLING PROPHECY
Means that we have to balance the risks and benefits of research between early attachment and later relationships to ensure that it does more good than harm
