Attachment
Attachment – An attachment is a mutual emotional bond between two people, such as between a caregiver and an infant, characterised by a particular behaviour such as proximity seeking behaviours (clinging to one another).
Caregiver-Infant Interactions:
Caregiver – Any person who looks after a child
Infant – A child who is pre-speech (has not yet got the ability to talk)
Interaction – Any occasion when two (or more) individuals interrelate to each other in a mutually responsive way
Reciprocity:
Definition: A two way rhythmic interaction between an infant and a caregiver where both are active contributors able to elicit a response from the other person in the interaction, like a conversation. The two take turns to give a response to the sounds, emotions or behaviours for example if the caregiver smiles at the infant, the infant will smile back afterwards.
Tronick et al (1979):
● Lab experiment (IV was interacting vs not), repeated measures
● Controlled observation (interactions recorded and responses of infants noted)
● Mothers who had been interacting with their infant were asked to look impassive
● Findings: infants tried to resume interaction by smiling but became more distressed when no answering response was provoked
● Conclusions: infants expect a give-and-take response to their signals, so reciprocity is a key feature of CII because the child would not be distressed if they hadn’t expected a response
Positives of Experiment
● Lab with good control (no one in the room to distract the mother or infant so cause and effect can be seen between still face and distress, rather than extraneous variables
● High temporal validity as it has been replicated over many time eras (one of the most replicated studies); suggests C&E is reliable so whist the behavioural categories might be subjective, they’re still accurate
Negatives of Experiment
● It’s subjective whether the baby was showing signs of distress (only an inference can be made because the infant cannot tell you they’re distressed and you cannot ask the infant if they are because they can’t speak) – weakens C&E.
● Lacks mundane realism as it is an unknown environment with few other (if any) stimuli in the room – could cause the infant more distress compared to everyday life, so the findings may not be generalisable outside of the lab.
Interactional Synchrony:
Definition: A rhythmic interaction which is like a conversation. The infant and caregiver coordinate their actions and anticipate how the other will behave. The actions are simultaneous, so they mirror each other’s behaviour and emotions. There’s a deliberate attempt to elicit a response from both individuals, such as when a caregiver laughs in response to an infant’s giggling sound and tickles them.
Condon & Sander (1974):
● Controlled observation
● Infants were filmed whilst recordings of adults were played
● Undertook frame-by-frame analysis of the films of babies’ movements in response to the recordings
● Findings: babies moved in time with the rhythm of the convo (caregiver sped up, so would the infant) and engaged in a subtle form of turn-taking (when adult paused, infant made a noise)
● Conclusion: real interactions have interactional synchrony, like a dance between infant and caregiver
Positives of Experiment
● High levels of control: same recording played to each infant which minimises distraction from other sounds (removed extraneous variables) so when time-frame analysis happens, experimenters can see whether the infants react the same/differently; this tells them it was the conversation impacting the infant’s behavior rather than random movement (which may be inferred if their behaviours were particularly different)
Negatives of Experiment
● Can’t see cause and effect relationship because there is no IV, so we cannot directly draw conclusions about the effect of interactional synchrony on interactions
● Baby’s behaviour is random so it’s hard to determine what is meant by their actions
● Lacks ecological validity – infant placed in a room by themselves so it is not analogous to real life, particularly as there are no distractions so the baby can fully concentrate on the conversation
Conclusion
● Overall the methodology is strong as although there is no C&E, the time frame analysis provides objective evidence that the infants all moved in a similar way. The mundane realism may not be an issue as infants may lie in cots and listen to conversations, rather than always seeing the speakers.
Meltzoff & Moore (1977):
● Controlled observation of 2-3 week old infants
● 4 stimuli: 3 faces (sticking out tongue, opening mouth, pursing lips) and 1 hand gesture (opening & closing fingers)
● Dummy placed in infants mouth to stop instantaneous response
● Model exhibited one behaviour and waited with a blank face for the infants response once dummy removed
● Responses recorded on film and observers categorised the nature of the infants’ behaviour in real time, slow motion and frame-by-frame
● Observers rated neutrality of model’s expression and infant’s response (unaware of the model’s action)
● Behavioural categories: mouth opening, termination of mouth opening, tongue protrusion, termination of tongue protrusion
● Each observer scored the tape twice to check for intra-observer reliability and also inter-observer (both above 0.92 – so there was an association between behaviour of the model and the infant)
● This means each observer was consistent in categorising the behaviours of infants within the times they rated the same tapes and the different observers were all similar
● Therefore, imitation of adult behaviours by infants is interactional and designed to elicit a response from the caregiver
Positives of Experiment
● Very high score of reliability (correlation coefficient) of 0.92 – very strong correlation between the model’s behaviour and infant’s behaviour. Good interobserver reliability so can be concluded the behaviour was a result of copying the model (good objectivity of behavioural categories). There’s good intraobserver reliability so the individual observers were consistent within their own scoring.
● The observer couldn’t see the model which removes demand characteristics, as the observer may expect the infant to response in a certain way if they saw the model
● High levels of control such as the pacifier stopping potential evolutionary response of direct imitation or conditioned behaviour. This stops the potential for interactional synchrony to be misinterpreted as evolutionary. Pacifier stopped an instantaneous response to the model’s behaviour so when the pacifier was removed the infant still copied the behaviour, which was an intentional behaviour – helps address the potential issue of imitative behaviour being instinctual.
Negatives of Experiment
● Infants’ faces move frequently and not obviously distinctly so it’s hard to conclude which faces the child was pulling and whether the baby was doing that action intentionally. Therefore there’s a chance the infant’s actions were just normal actions if a baby – you can’t follow this up (like in Milgram & Elm’s studies) because the baby was pre-verbal (not as valid because of the 0.92)
● Artificial environment so it lacks ecological validity – it is not analogous to real life, particularly as there are no distractions so the baby can fully concentrate on the model
Analysis & Evaluation Reciprocity and Interactional Synchrony:
Negatives:
- There’s contradictory research. Piaget’s (1962) holds the view that very young infants do not have a distinct sense of the self / the other so infants could not immediately tell the difference between themselves and other people. To imitate another person’s actions you need the understanding that the person is someone other than you, doing different things in order to act like them. If this is not something children are capable of, we have read too much into the infants actions by suggesting that the infants were intentionally reciprocating / imitating behaviour. He saw imitation as no more than a learned response caused by operant conditioning – the imitation produces a smile from the caregiver, which is rewarding to the infant and so the infant repeats the behaviour
- There are concerns that the studies are observational so no C&E can be seen/only inferences can be drawn. It is an artificial setting which is likely quieter and with less distractions than the home and the infant may have been split from their caregiver. Also hard to be sure what the infant is thinking (no follow up as in Milgram’s study because the child cannot speak) as behaviours aren’t distinct which reduces validity.
Positives:
- Despite failures to replicate the studies making type 1 errors more likely and increasing the probability the findings were due to chance, there is further evidence from Jaffe et al (1973) & Brazelton (1979) to provide support for the idea that infants coordinate their actions with caregivers, and that this happens increasingly from 3-4 weeks. Brazelton saw a basic rhythmic convo as a foundation for the development of attachment, increasing the caregiver’s sensitivity.
- Bowlby & Ainsworth: sensitivity is seen to be a key element in the development of attachments. The distress shown in Tronick et al’s (1979) initial experiment suggests that the infants are deliberately aiming to engage their caregivers, as they expect a response from the caregiver. If they did not expect a response, they would not be distressed. The weight of research on this side of the issue potentially suggests that Piaget was simply wrong.
Stages of Attachment:
- Pre-attachment
- Birth-3 months
- First 6 weeks (asocial stage), infants respond to objects and people the same
- Beyond 6 weeks, have a preference for people and can recognise then by smell/voice
- Indiscriminate
- 3-6 months
- Distinguish between familiar/unfamiliar people, smiling at familiar ones
- Allow strangers to hold them & comforted by anyone (no stranger anxiety)
- Discriminate
- 7 months+
- Develop specific attachments and are distressed when away from them (separation anxiety)
- This is the primary attachment figure (person the child has the closest bond with)
- Strangers can’t handle them – stranger anxiety
- Multiple
- 9 months+
- Strong emotional connections with caregivers (e.g. grandparents) and non-caregivers (e.g. other children)
- Develop secondary attachments (can get separation anxiety from them too)
- Fear of strangers weakens
- Attachment to primary figure still strongest
Schaffer & Emerson (1964):
● 60 Glaswegian newborns and their mothers
● Used observations and interviews to look into stranger anxiety (baby can recognise who is familiar) and separation anxiety (indication of an attachment)
● Visits every month until 12 months old, then again at 18 months
● Researchers approached the baby to see if they showed signs of stranger anxiety
● Mothers were asked about their baby’s response e.g. when left with a babysitter/put in a cot
○ Asked to rate behaviour from 0-3 0=no protest; 3=cries loudly)
○ Showed separation anxiety
● Findings:
○ Separation anxiety was shown around age 6-8 months
○ Stranger anxiety came at around a month later
○ Strongly attached infants had mothers who were very attentive and gave more opportunities for interaction whereas weakly attached infants’ mothers responded less quickly and had fewer interaction opportunities
○ Most infants developed multiple attachments
○ Within 1 month of first forming an attachment, 29% of infants had multiple attachments to someone else & by 6 months after the first attachment, this figure was at 78%. At 18 months,87% had at least two attachments
○ 31% had more than 5 attachments
○ 39% of an infant’s prime attachment was not to the main carer
○ 65% of babies’ first attachment was to the mother & only 3% were to the father
○ 30% had two simultaneous first attachments (often mother and father)
○ Attachments to different people were of similar nature – infants behaving in the same way to different attachment figures (e.g. to the mother and grandmother)
● Conclusions:
○ Patterns of attachment were common to all infants (biologically controlled)
○ Attachments more easily made with those who are most sensitive, recognising and responding to the infants needs (rather than the amount of time)
○ Multiple attachments are the norm and of similar quality which opposes Bowlby’s idea that attachments are a hierarchy of 1 primary attachment – Schaffer says there’s no reason why mothering can’t be shared between several people
Analysis & Evaluation:
Positives:
● High in ecological validity as the observation took place in the natural environment of the home (other than stranger anxiety). The behaviour was unlikely to be affected by observers.
● Longitudinal so children were followed up and observed regularly. It has good internal validity because the same participants are used to investigate children at each age – no participant variables.
Negatives:
● Study reflects child rearing behaviours in the 60s where most child care was by the mother who were less likely to work outside the home. Now, fathers tend to take a more active role and are more likely to be the primary attachment figure than in the 60s. Also a biased sample – working class population so can’t be generalised outside that group.
● May be unreliable as it was based on mother’s reports of their infants. Some would have been less sensitive to their infants’ protests so not reported them (creates systematic bias which challenges validity of data)
There are some strengths to Schaffer’s studies however it is difficult to place specific time periods on children’s development of attachment as all children develop at different rates. Although it does appear as though attachment changes as children do. It must be considered that Schaffer’s theory is significantly a product of the time period, as well as the culture it was produced in, and therefore the theory may not be as applicable to 21st century living.
The Role of the Father:
● Schaffer & Emerson said fathers were less likely to be primary attachment figures because they spend less time with their infants.
● Possible that men lack the emotional sensitivity (that women have) to form intense attachments but men can still be the primary caregiver
○ Oestrogen underlies caring behaviours so are more oriented towards impersonal goals than men
○ There are also social stereotypes affecting male behaviour like it’s feminine to be sensitive
○ Frodi et al (1978) – showed videos of infants crying and found no difference in the physiological responses of men and woman
● Fathers interact with their infants similarly to mothers, but fathers are more involved in play than caretaking and play is more unpredictable than mothers (who are more soothing)
● Geiger (1996) – fathers are exciting playmates whereas mothers tend to read stories/more conventional (here fathers are secondary attachments)
○ Maybe a lack of sensitivity from fathers is a positive because it encourages problem-solving and communicative/cognitive demands on children
● Paquette (2004) – fathers are more likely to encourage toddlers to take risks in physical play. Fathers structure talk around active play whereas a mother’s talk is primarily emotional to soothe and reassure the infant.
● Much research on fathering has focussed on the time spent with the infant but the amount of time is likely less important than how that time is spent; it’s sometimes hard to distinguish between quality and quantity.
● Lamb et al (1985) – fathers involvement with infants can be captured in 3 dimensions:
○ Interaction (how much he engages with the infant)
○ Accessibility (how physically and emotionally accessible he is)
○ Responsibility (the extent to which he takes on caregiving tasks)
● Lamb (1987) – children often prefer interactions with fathers when in a positive emotional state, whereas mothers prefer when children are distressed
● Hardy (1999) – fathers less able than mothers to detect low levels of infant distress (so less suitable primary caregivers) – Lamb disagrees
● Lucassen et al (2011) – meta-analysis of observations and the strange situation: higher levels of sensitivity were associated with greater levels of infant-father attachment security (more secure attachments found in children whose fathers were more sensitive to their children’s needs)
● Verissimo et al (2011) – examined the relationship between children and their parents and their later popularity in nurseries. The relationship between fathers and toddlers correlated with the number of friends at preschool and appeared more important than toddler and mother relationships in future friendships.
● However, Grossman (2002) – the mother’s relationship with the infant was more important in teenage relationships but the quality of father’s play related to the quality of adolescent relationships
Multiple attachments/Role of fathers analysis & evaluation:
Positives:
● Paquette – fathers encourage risk-taking/brave behaviour in play. Mothers are more soothing/reassuring. Supports the idea that fathers are just one of many attachments and more of a playmate than a caregiver. Further supported by Lamb – children prefer interacting with fathers when in a positive emotional state/seeking stimulation but prefer mothers when distressed/want comfort.
● Hardy found fathers are less sensitive to low levels of infant distress, so mothers are faster to notice their infants in the first hours after birth.
Negatives:
- Verissimo – quality of the relationship between toddlers and their fathers correlates more with their popularity with their peers than with their relationship with their mothers. So Verissimo shows the view that fathers are only playmates can be excused.
● The view is sexist – Bowlby said fathers’ roles are mostly economic but that underestimates the importance of their role. The view is likely due to traditional gender roles where mothers spent more time at home so became accustomed to the signals due to practice rather than being ‘biologically prepared’. Lucassen et al – children with sensitive fathers were more securely attached, so the fathers role is important. Lamb – fathers who were the main care-givers for their infants quickly developed a greater sensitivity to their off-springs’ needs. Time and practice create greater sensitivity rather than biology.
Animal attachment studies
● There is a critical period, where the time in which something must be done or it never will happen
● Attachment in animals is innate & adaptive
● Attachment shapes the animal’s behaviour later in life
● Different genes so innate behaviour may not be the same
Lorenz (1935)
● Clutch of gosling eggs
● Field experiment, independent groups
● Half were left with their biological mother, and other eggs were placed in an incubator. When they hatched, the first thing the incubated eggs saw was Lorenz. He marked the geese to distinguish between the groups.
● Placed together with the mother and Lorenz present, the half who had seen their mother as the first moving thing they saw ran to her, and the half who had seen Lorenz ran to him. Lorenz’s group showed no recognition of their mother. Not all animals (ie curlews) imprint on humans.
● Critical period – if not exposed to a moving object in this time, they’ll never imprint.
● Strongest imprint is 13-16 hours after birth – period ends after 2 days.
● Irreversible and long-lasting.
● Affects sexual imprinting – birds choose to mate with the same object which they imprinted on.
Harlow (1958)
● Investigating attachment & separation anxiety in primates
● 8 orphan rhesus monkeys
● Lab experiment, independent groups
● 2 wire mothers each with a different head. One was wrapped in cloth. For 4 monkeys, the bottle was on the cloth mother and for the other 4 it was on the wire mother. They recorded the amount of time each infant spent on each mother. Observations were also made when the monkeys were scared.
● All 8 monkeys spent the most time with the cloth mother, regardless of which mother had the bottle. Those fed on the wire mother returned back to the cloth mother after feeding. All went to the cloth mother when frightened and when playing with new toys they often kept one foot on the cloth mother.
● Longer lasting effects: motherless monkeys developed abnormally even if they had contact comfort; they froze or fled when approached by other monkeys, didn’t show normal mating behaviour and didn’t cradle their own babies.
● Infants form attachments to the person offering contact comfort, rather than to the person who feeds them.
● Also have a critical period.
Analysis & Evaluation of Animal Studies:
Positives:
● Lorenz – There’s supporting research as several replications have been made supporting the idea of imprinting. Guiton – leghorn chicks exposed to yellow gloves during their first weeks of feeding became imprinted on the gloves and tried to mate with the gloves. Imprinting happens during a critical period and is long-lasting. This makes it less likely that errors were made in Lorenz’s research or the results were down to chance alone, making his research more reliable.
● Harlow – Lab experiment with control over variables (cause & effect). Isolating the infant monkeys in a cage with the choice of cloth or wire mother, and manipulating which gave milk whilst only the cloth mother was able to give contact-comfort, allowed Harlow to see if the monkeys formed attachments to the carer that fed or comforted them. The time the monkeys spent with the cloth mother, going to the wire mother only to feed, gave measurable evidence that food is not the key factor in animals forming attachments. High internal validity = trust.
Negatives:
● General – Animals may not tell us about human attachment. Although humans share a large % of our DNA with Macaques (about 94%) – we are significantly different from them in many important ways. Humans, we are conscious of a sense of self & have higher-order thinking and responses, so our behaviour is less likely to be explained through simplistic processes, like imprinting during a critical period. They’re richer and more complex emotionally which means we have to treat any conclusions drawn from animal studies with extreme caution.
● General – Studies are unethical. Whilst the BPS/APS guidelines were developed after Lorenz and Harlow’s studies, and would not apply to animals anyway, it may be morally wrong to do this research. Both animals were affected for the rest of their lives, particularly the monkeys. Being separated from a mother-figure and put through terrifying ‘variations’ left them unable to interact socially with their own species (long lasting harm). Doesn’t affect the validity of what the studies tell us, it is a weakness of the research that it was so harmful.
Attachment types:
● Secure
○ Interact cooperatively and frequently with the primary caregiver (PC)
○ Comfortable with social interaction & intimacy
○ Willing to explore the room/play independently using the PC as a safe base
○ Return regularly to PC/look to them when anxious (proximity seeking)
○ If the caregiver leaves, they show moderate distress (slight separation protest) but are easily soothed on return
○ If left with a stranger, they’re very wary & show moderate distress (stranger anxiety)
● Insecure-avoidant
○ Avoid interaction/intimacy with the caregiver
○ In a novel environment, they explore and play but don’t use the PC as a base
○ Don’t exhibit proximity-seeking behaviours
○ If PC leaves the room, they show no distress and don’t seek comfort upon return
○ If left with a stranger, they’re slightly wary and exhibit moderate distress. They reject attempts from strangers to comfort them
● Insecure-resistant
○ Alternate between seeking/avoiding interaction and intimacy with PC
○ Expect the relationship to be difficult
○ In novel environments, they cling to the caregiver showing extreme proximity-seeking behaviours
○ If PC leaves, they show intense distress, and seek comfort on return but seem conflicted and can’t be comforted; they show anger at PC, and want to be nearby but resist contact or any attempt at being comforted
○ If left with someone they don’t know they’re very wary and show the most intense level of distress
● Disorganised
○ Cannot be categorised because they don’t respond consistently
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation:
● Investigating attachment behaviour in novel environments
● 100 infants from middle-class American families (between 12-18 months)
● Controlled observation
● Manipulated the different stages of observation, measuring the children’s reaction at each stage
● Novel scenarios arranged to stress the child, to measure stranger anxiety, separation anxiety & the secure base concept – the child’s reactions tallied in a table of key behavioural categories
○ Caregiver & child enter the room with a two-way mirror (reduces stranger anxiety) & cameras
○ Toys available: child’s exploration + proximity-seeking behaviours logged
○ Stranger enters + talks to parent: child’s stranger anxiety logged
○ Parent leaves the child with the stranger: child’s separation anxiety logged
○ Parent returns + stranger leaves: child’s reunion behaviours logged
○ Parent leaves infant alone: child’s separation anxiety logged
○ Stranger returns + offers comfort: child’s stranger anxiety logged
○ Parent returns: child’s reunion behaviours logged
| % | Willingness to explore | Stranger anxiety | Separation anxiety | Reunion behaviour | |
| Secure (Type B) | 66 | High (PG as safe base) | Moderate | Some (easily comforted) | Enthusiastic (easily comforted) |
| Insecure- Avoidant (Type A) | 22 | High (less proximity seeking than B) | Low | Little/moderate | Avoids contact |
| Insecure- resistant (Type C) | 12 | Low (intense proximity seeking) | High | Immediately very distressed | Seeks PGs presence but rejects comfort offered |
● Mother’s SENSITIVITY is a key factor in attachment type (a responsive mother = infant knowing it) – could rely on caregiver = secure (Type B)
● A less responsive mother, ignoring infant’s needs = infant not knowing it could rely on caregiver = insecure-avoidant (Type A)
● A less sensitive/more impatient mother, reading infant’s need incorrectly = infant never knowing whether its needs would be met = insecure-resistant (Type C)
Analysis & Evaluation:
Positives:
● High inter-rater reliability of 0.94 correlation due to objective behavioural categories (e.g. exploration behaviour – room divided into 16 squares). Main et al replicated using test retest finding the children fit the same attachment types
Negatives:
● Classification incomplete as disorganised attachment isn’t accounted for (show behaviours from all types) – findings less generalisable because the statistic doesn’t include disorganised. Some children presumably misclassified
● Culturally biased as it was based on western individualistic ideas of what secure attachment looks like. In collectivist cultures, codependency is valued. Takahashi’s study of Japanese and German children:
○ Japan had more insecure resistant likely due to secure being misclassified for spending time with parents – first time they’re left by the parent during the study so bereaved not anxious because they’re sad to lose a group member whereas western children are anxious due to the treat to themself as an individual
○ Used imposed etic rather than emic
○ In Germany, children were more independent so classed as avoidant
○ Therefore it may be that using the strange situation procedure to investigate attachment in other cultures, as done by van Izjendoorn’s and Kroonenberg, may not produce valid results.
Cultural Variations in Attachment:
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg:
● Meta-analysis looking into cross-cultural differences
● Only studies of the mother/infant using strange situations (as other styles could have classed ‘secure’ differently)
● Excluded studies into specific groups like twins or babies with Down syndrome and those with less than 35 infants (more generalisable)
● Examined over 2000 strange situation classifications from 32 studies in 8 countries (W. Germany, GB, Netherlands, Sweden, Israel, Japan, China & USA)
● Differences between countries were small, most common was secure followed by avoidant (apart from in Israel and Japan)
● Intracultural variation was 1.5x > intercultural variation so too simple to suggest everyone in one culture is raised the same way
● Secure:
○ Highest = UK 75%
○ Lowest = China 50%
● Resistant
○ Highest = Israel 28.8%
○ Lowest = Sweden 3.9%
● Avoidant
○ Highest = W.Germany 35.3%
○ Lowest = Japan 5.2%
● Global patterns similar to original findings and secure being the most common suggests it’s the best for healthy development
● Cross-cultural similarities may be due to the effects of mass media
Analysis & Evaluation:
Positives:
● Meta-analysis uses a large sample and certain studies excluded make the findings more reliable and representative so they can be generalised
● Strong similarities between the cultures suggest attachment formed in a similar way so the Strange Situation is an appropriate measure of attachment (otherwise in a large sample significant differences would be seen)
Negatives:
● It might be that Van Ljzendoorn’s study was not valid as the strange situation was based upon the infant behaviours, with the value that the infants should be encouraged to be independent. However, in collectivist cultures such as Japan, it may be that secure attachment looks different due to cultural differences like the value of being part of a group. They may not value independence the way Western individualist cultures do. For this reason, many Japanese children were classed as insecure-ambivalent because they showed distress when left by their mother, whereas it may be that they were really showing bereavement, not anxiety, as they had never been left by their mothers before (Takahashi) unlike American infants who frequently went to nursery. This is a beta cultural bias where the differences between cultures in their attitudes towards independence have been ignored and it’s been assumed that all secure infants exhibit the same behaviours. This is an issue because Japanese infants were likely misclassified. Therefore the measure, that is the strange situation, is not an accurate way of investigating cultural differences in attachment behaviours because the strange situation may not be applicable to collectivist cultures.
Explanations of Attachment:
Learning theory of attachment:
Don’t just talk about learning theory (e.g. classical conditioning). You need to talk about its relevance to the attachment theory – go straight in with the link don’t explain learning theory first
Classical Conditioning:
● Food = US
● Pleasure gained from food = UR
● Primary caregiver = NS
● Feeder (carer) ALWAYS present when food received = associated with food
● Primary caregiver = CS
● Takes on qualities of NS: pleasure felt at the carer’s presence = CR
● The attachment bond = learned response/association
Operant conditioning:
● Primary reinforcers: something that naturally encourages behaviour, it’s innately pleasurable
● Secondary reinforcer: we associate it with the primary reinforcer to encourage behaviour, it’s not innately pleasurable
● Dollard & Millar (1950):
○ Hunger causes infant discomfort, we have a drive to reduce discomfort
○ Food reduces discomfort & drive = rewarding = primary negative reinforcer
○ Caregiver always present when drive reduced = associated with primary reinforcer
○ Carer is the secondary reinforcer – produces sense of reward even when food isn’t present
○ More negative reinforcement strengthens attachment bond
○ Fed child stops crying = parental relief = primary negative reinforcer too
○ Both rewards lead to attachment behaviours being repeated
○ Pleasure at secondary reinforcer’s presence = attachment bond
Social Learning Theory:
● Hay & Vespo:
○ Parents are role models and children learn attachment by role modelling, direct instruction and social facilitation
○ Role modelling = copying the behaviour of someone they admire who they saw receive a reward for that behaviour
○ Direct instruction = being told to do something by a role model
○ Social facilitation = conversing with the child and talking a situation through with them (sharing the swing – helping them understand how another child might feel if they don’t share)
Analysis & Evaluation:
Negatives:
● Harlow said contact comfort was more important than food (disprove cupboard love)
○ Spent 17 hours a day on the cloth mother
○ Learning theory suggests it was food that causes attachment but would find that monkeys spent more time on whichever mother fed it if that was the case
○ Too simple to explain simple monkey behaviours, but humans have more complex, richer emotional connections in attachment so cannot explain human relationships
● Schaffer & Emmerson found infants attached to the most responsive caregiver, not the one who fed them
○ 39% didn’t form a primary attachment with the person who fed them
○ If learning theory was correct, children would be most attached to the person who fed them – impossible for 39% to form an attachment without food (so definitely not right for at least 39% of children)
Positives:
● The theory may have some credibility but it would need considerable changes to be made to it
○ Harlow suggested infants spent more time with the mothers offering comfort
○ The more rewarding reward could be contact comfort (wrong emphasis on food)
○ Primary negative reinforcer could be the removal of loneliness when an infant receives contact comfort
○ Unconditioned stimulus could be contact comfort
● Overall very poor – would need to be changed to have any credibility as it currently has no supportive evidence
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory:
● Evolutionary approach
● Attachment is an adaptive behaviour, selected for through natural and sexual selection.
● Attachment is an innate, universal characteristic because it was an adaptive trait on the EEA – higher chance of being protected and cared for. This formed a template for future attachments enabling reproductive success
● There’s a critical period of first 12 months for most, then up to 3 years for all, if attachment isn’t formed then it never can be
● Infants have innate social releasers – behaviours like smiling which encourage caregiving from an adult (more common around interactive adult)
● Primary attachment is a special, monotropic bond – no other attachment can match it
● Leads to internal working model (internalised schema of relationships) is like template for future relationships
● Continuity hypothesis: whatever model you have as an infant, you will have for the rest of your life
● Hierarchy of attachments: rankings of people where after the primary attachment, everyone else is a secondary attachment
Analysis & Evaluation:
Negatives:
● Temperament hypothesis – James Kagan (1984) explains ‘continuity’:
○ Says attachment follows us because we’re a particular type of person, not because of our relationship with a primary caregiver – just you don’t want the intimate relationship
○ Two explanations for something, equally as valid then it weakens both of them
○ Kagen says we have a personality type – that could be used to explain why people have similar attachments with people throughout their lives; people attach because that’s the way they like to interact, rather than because that’s the way their primary attachment has determined
Positives:
● Hazen & Shaver (1987): The ‘Love Quiz’:
○ Survey in news with 2 lists of words, people were asked to pick 3 that described their relationship as a child with their parents
○ Second asked to pick a paragraph with describes their current or longest relationship
○ Correlational study – was their attachment type as a child like their attachment type as an adult
○ High level of correlation between child attachment type and adult relationships, which supports the continuity hypothesis – forms as a result of the internal working model
○ Issues with the research: self-report issues & retrospective – therefore need to use another piece of evidence:
■ The longitudinal Minnesota parent-child study (Sroufe et al) found a correlation between childhood attachment types and adult ones – longitudinal overcomes the retrospective issue
● Fruitful research – changes have improved children’s lives:
○ Bowlby sparked an interest in how infants could be harmed now we potentially understand attachment
○ People weren’t encouraged to hold babies/form relationships with babies because staff often left and thought it would hurt the children when they left – Bowlby said you need to in the critical period
○ Institutional care now each child has a key worker who is responsible for their emotional well-being and gets children foster parents where possible – substitute care prevents the destruction of attachment bond
○ Robertson & Robertson – films of children left by parents in hospitals, when they went home they had extreme anger towards their parents, now there are regular hospital visits
Bowbly’s theory of Maternal Deprivation:
● Bowlby stated that food and safety alone are not enough for healthy development
● Children need a warm, continuous relationship with their mothers to ensure the development of good mental health.
● Based on the principle of the internal working model, a good infant-mother relationship is crucial in acting as a template for future relationships.
● When a child is denied a continuous, warm relationship and not offered maternal care during the critical period (before the age of around two and a half years) they will suffer from emotional deprivation, where they do not receive the warm love from their mother for a long period of time.
● Leads to emotional maladjustment due to the impact it has on one’s intellectual and emotional development.
● Children go on to be less intelligent and have lower IQs.
● Identified affectionless psychopathy where individuals have an inability to feel guilt or strong emotions towards others, thus being unable to form healthy relationships and leading to higher rates of crime as they cannot empathise with their victims or feel any remorse.
Forty-Four Juvenile Thieves:
● To determine whether there is a link between maternal deprivation in infancy and adolescent delinquency.
● 88 children, half had been caught stealing and the other half were a control group (still emotionally disturbed)
● Quasi-experiment, independent groups using interview techniques
● Analysed the case histories of 88 patients in the Child Guidance Centre
● Procedure:
○ Interviewed the ‘thieves’ for signs of affectionless psychopathy, enabling them to be thieves (stole because it didn’t matter to them).
○ Families were also interviewed to find out if they had early separations from their mothers.
○ Control was set up to see how often material deprivation occurred in children who aren’t thieves.
● Findings:
○ Affectionless thieves experienced frequent early separations from their mothers: 86% experienced separations compared to 17% of other thieves
○ Almost none of the control group experienced early separations whereas 39% of all thieves had
○ Early separations consisted of foster care and stays in hospital
● Conclusion: early separations are linked to affectionless psychopathy – a lack of continuous care may cause emotional maladjustments or mental disorders
Positives:
● There has been other research which found similar results to Bowlby – that separation does reduce intelligence and has negative effects on emotional development. Spitz & Wolf (1946) & Skodak & Skeels (1949):
○ Spitz & Wolf observed that 100 ‘normal’ children became severely depressed after being placed in an institution for a few months
○ Skodak & Skees found that children placed in an institution scored poorly on intelligence tests, however when the same children were in an institution where inmates offered the children emotional care, their IQ scores improved by almost 30 points
Negatives:
● Rutter (1972) felt Bowlby mistook correlation for cause:
○ Bowlby found relationship between early separation and delinquency/affectionless psychopathy
○ Could have been a third variable such as the cause of the separation (e.g. neglect) which caused the problems during adolescence not the separation itself
○ Correlational data cannot show cause and effect relationship
○ Rutter pointed out that Bowlby’s conclusions were flawed
Analysis & Evaluation:
Positives:
● Bowlby’s 44 Juvenile Thieves:
○ Findings:
■ Affectionless thieves experienced frequent early separations from their mother: 86% experienced separations compared to 17% of other thieves so deprivation effects whether thieves are affectionless
■ Almost none of the control group experienced early separations whereas 39% of all thieves had
○ Early separations are linked to affectionless psychopathy – a lack of continuous care may cause emotional maladjustments or mental disorders
○ Bowlby correct that maternal deprivation leads to emotional maladjustment, otherwise there would presumably be no difference between the affectionless thieves and other thieves
○ More deprivation of the thieves than control group suggests that the emotional maladjustment causes higher crime rates
Negatives:
● Rutter (1972) felt Bowlby mistook correlation for cause:
○ Bowlby found relationship between early separation and delinquency/affectionless psychopathy
○ Could have been a third variable such as the cause of the separation (e.g. neglect) which caused the problems during adolescence not the separation itself
○ Correlational data cannot show cause and effect relationship
○ Rutter pointed out that Bowlby’s conclusions were flawed
Positives:
● Bowlby’s research has had a significant impact upon child rearing generally, and children’s experience of hospital care in particular Robertson (1952):
○ Big impact on post-war thinking about child-rearing practices especially in hospitals
○ Often, infants were separated from their mothers when in hospital, visiting was discouraged or even banned as it often made the children distressed when the parents left
○ Robertson (college of Bowlby) filmed a 2 year-old girl called Laura during the 8 days she was in hospital
■ Used time-sampling of filming two 40 minute sessions a day to avoid the criticism that he was only filming when she was distressed
■ Often was frequently distressed and begged to go home
○ Bowlby’s theory which highlighted the importance of the mother in forming early attachments led to a cultural shift where mothers and babies were no longer separated
Romanian orphan studies – effects of institutionalisation:
Effects:
● Disinhibited attachment Rutter et al ERA Study
○ Type of insecure attachment
○ No discrimination and overly friendly with strangers (most develop stranger anxiety in 3rd stage of attachment)
○ Distressed when the stranger leaves like a separation protest
○ Attention seeking is common
○ Rutter – adaptive behaviour because more likely to attach
● Cognitive impairment Rutter et al ERA Study
○ Emotional deprivation affects cognitive processing
○ Lower IQ than control groups raised at home by parents
● Poor parenting Quinton et al
○ Women institutionalised as children have more difficulty raising children
○ Greater % of children of institutionalised women end up in care
● Difficulty with relationships Hodges & Tizard
○ Can form good relationships with adoptive parents (when young enough)
○ Still struggle to form relationships with peers/siblings
○ Parents may be more patient as they’re understanding of the child’s situation
● Physical underdevelopment Rutter et al ERA Study
○ Even when institutions provide for children’s physical needs, emotional deprivation has negative effect on physical development
○ Children tend to be small for their age
Romanian orphan studies:
Zeanah et al – Bucharest Early Intervention Project:
● Determine the effects of institutionalisation
● Experimental group of 95 children (12-31 months with an average of 90% of life in care), control was 50 Romanian children
● Quasi-experiment using the strange situation
● IV: Whether or not children had spent time in an institution. DV: Attachment type, as classified by behaviours exhibited
● Attachment type assessed using SS and results compared to control group (also assessed using SS)
● Findings:
○ 74% of the control group were classified as securely attached, compared to 19% of the institutionalised children
○ 65% of the institutionalised children were classified as disorganised attachment type
○ Less than 20% of the control group showed signs of disinhibited attachment, compared to 44% of the institutionalised group – nearly double
● Institutionalisation led to lower levels of secure attachment and higher levels of disinhibited attachment, therefore institutionalisation has a negative effect on attachment
Rutter et al – ERA (English & Romanian Adoption Study)
● Determine whether the effects of institutionalisation can be reversed
● Sample:
○ Experimental group:
■ 165 Romanian orphans adopted by British parents:
■ 58 adopted before the age of 6 months
■ 59 adopted between 6 months – 2 years
■ 54 adopted between 2 – 4 years
○ Control group:
■ 52 British children adopted before the age of 2
● Natural experiment (longitudinal), using standardised testing, interview and observation techniques
○ Institutionalised children were raised naturally by loving families who adopted them
● IV: Age of adoption. DV: Rate of physical, cognitive and social development
● Adoptees were tested for physical, cognitive and social development at ages 4, 6, 11 & 15. Qualitative information was also gathered through interviews with parents and teachers.
● Findings:
○ At time of adoption
■ Physical – Romanian orphans fell behind their UK counterparts in every measure. More than 50% were malnourished and physically smaller, falling in the bottom third of the population for weight & head size.
■ Cognitive – Mean IQ of children adopted before 2 = 102
■ Mean IQ of children adopted between 6 months & 2 years = 86
■ Means IQ of children adopted between 2 & 4 years = 77
○ As time progressed:
■ Variation in the extent to which children recovered from the effects of institutionalisation.
■ This correlated to the age at which they had been adopted.
■ Infants adopted after 6 months of age showed disinhibited attachment (70.4%) and had problems with peer relationships
■ Infants adopted before 6 months rarely showed disinhibited attachments (8.9% showed marked disinhibition)
■ The cognitive impact remained at age 16 (Beckett et al, 2010).
■ 54% of the Romanian children showing disinhibition at age 6 still reflected this attachment style at 11
● After 6 months they would have been further out of the sensitive period which makes attachments harder so suffered the most (marked disinhibition). Therefore infants could recover but it is far easier when adopted after a shorter time in an institution. 46% of children with disinhibition overcame it by age 11.
● 40.4% of UK adoptees (adopted before the age of 2) showed NO disinhibition when assessed at age 6, whereas only 29.5% of Romanian orphans adopted after 6 months did. This (combined with the statistics above) suggests that the lack of attachment in the Romanian orphanages did impact the children’s attachment type/ability to form positive emotional bonds.
Analysis & Evaluation:
Negatives:
● We need to be careful drawing conclusions based on Romanian orphan studies:
○ Children were deprived of more than just emotionally; Romanian institutions had a lower standard of care.
○ Can’t be sure that all of the negative effects are solely due to emotional deprivation. Studies were quasi or natural experiments, investigators had no control over the extraneous variables and we cannot draw a causal conclusion about the effects of institutionalisation.
○ Children lacked any intellectual stimulation left all day in their cribs. Potentially alone, or in combination with the emotional deprivation, that’s responsible for difficulty forming relationships, and lower IQ scores.
Positives:
● The studies, like Rutter et al, which are longitudinal are strong because they give a more accurate picture of the long-term effects of institutionalism:
○ Enable researchers to see how long-lasting the effects might be.
○ If Rutter took the figures on disinhibited attachment at 6 as the final assessment of how well-institutionalised children can recover, more show disinhibited attachment than at 11.
○ At 11, over half of the children who had been disinhibited at 6 had not recovered.
○ More accurate understanding of the impact of the effects of institutionalism due to the good methodology used by these studies.
● Good real-life applications:
○ Studies led to changes in policy such as encouraging mothers to breastfeed their babies as long as possible before giving them up removed – known children should be given up as soon as possible, to allow for adoption before the development of attachment at 6 months.
○ Children in care now have a ‘key worker’ assigned to them, rather than being ‘cared for’ by many different staff. This allows for a secure attachment to form and significantly lessens the chance of the children developing disinhibited attachment.
The Influence of EA on Later Relationships:
● Bowlby: IWM is an internalised schema from our primary monotropic attachment for future attachments. Determines how secondary attachments will be similar (continuity hypothesis)
● Ainsworth added: Used the strange situation to identify attachment types – attachment type from primary attachment is the same for the rest of your life due to the schema
Childhood relationships:
● Securely attached:
○ Most socially competent (interrelate well with others), empathetic, least isolated; very unlikely to be involved in bullying in any way (victim or perpetrator) – get on with peers and adults well
● Insecure resistant:
○ Less socially competent, most likely to be victims of bullying; overly dependent on their teachers/adults (due to social difficulty with peers)
● Insecure avoidant:
○ Less socially competent, most likely to engage in bullying behaviour than other groups; aggressive and disobedient in interactions with teachers/adults
Romantic/Friendships as Adults:
● Securely attached:
○ Most successful in both types of relationships, comfortable and capable of intimacy (opening yourself up and making yourself feel vulnerable); sustain relationships well
● Insecure resistant:
○ Most likely to struggle with maintaining friendships and relationships (wanting too much but also not trusting; being too needy/jealous – puts too much pressure on the relationship)
● Insecure avoidant:
○ Most likely to struggle with romantic relationships (in particular because there’s even more intimacy but less of an issue with sexual intimacy perhaps because they don’t see that as intimacy) and friendships because they’re uncomfortable with intimacy
Parental Relationships:
Mirror attachment styles of own parents – IWM passed down through families
Hazan & Shaver:
● Love quiz asking which description fits their feelings about romantic relationships (relative to intimacy) and then an adjective list to describe their relationship with their parents
● Found a strong relationship between childhood and adult attachment type
○ Secure had relationships which on average lasted 2x as insecure
● Compared to Ainsworth:
○ Insecure avoidant 15% in A’s study, 25% in H&S’s study
○ 70% secure in A, 56% in H&S
○ 15% resistant in A, 19% in H&S
Analysis & Evaluation:
Positives:
● Hazan & Shaver supportive evidence
○ 70% & 56% secure most common – infants trusted mother to be there as a safe base/return so went on to have trustworthy relationships
○ Same attachment characteristics = continuity hypothesis (concluded from correlation)
Negatives:
● Hazan & Shaver (1987) suffers from methodological concerns:
○ Retrospective issues (state were in now affects how we recall our childhood)
○ Self report on a socially sensitive topic (people give own views and people want to appear good at relationships so actively lie or unconsciously lie to ourselves)
○ Correlational study (not lab experiment so can’t show cause and effect and there may be a third variable, such a temperament (Kagan))
○ This questions the validity as the results may have been due to other factors such as lies, impeded recall due to current relationships and temperament. Therefore we cannot be sure the results are due to the early attachment or another, third, variable.
○ Furthermore, the same is true of MOST of the research in this area.
Positives:
● Backed up by longitudinal support (McCarthy)
○ Attachment types of 40 female infants assessed and also assessed later in life, findings reflected continuity hypothesis (secure were best adjusted to relationships)
○ Not retrospective so less concerns over the validity (memory not relied on)
○ This makes Hazan and Shaver’s study more reliable as it is likely that the retrospective approach they took did not affect the findings.
Still got a question? Leave a comment
Leave a comment