AQA Psychology Attachment

baby and caregiver have meaningful interactions. quality is associated with successful social development.

Reciprocity: respond to each other's signals.

Feldman: alert phases. at 3 months interactions become intense and reciprocal.

Brazelton: infant and caregiver take an active role. more interactions allows attachment to develop.

Interactional Synchrony: Mirror behaviour.

Meltzoff and Moore: adult makes facial expressions. record baby. baby imitated.

Isabella et al.: 30 mothers and babies. high synchrony associates with betert attachment

Difficult to reliably test infant behaviour: infant behaviour difficult to reliably test. difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours (infants constantly pull faces). don't know whether behaviour is a response, or whether it is naturally occurring.

Research has failed to replicate findings: other research failed to replicate findings and support the theories. failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moore’s findings, however Koepke was criticised for being less carefully controlled. another suggested infants couldn’t distinguish life from videotaped interactions with mothers. infants are not actually responding to the adult (due to chance). evidence doubts theories.

behaviour is intentional: observed infant behaviour when interacting with two inanimate objects, one simulating tongue movements and the other opening/closing the mouth. made little response to the objects. infants do not just imitate anything they see - it is a specific social response to other humans.

Individual Differences: does not consider the individual differences between infants that may affect their behaviours. Isabella et al. Heimann showed that infants who demonstrate a lot of imitation from birth onwards have been found to have a better quality of relationship at three months assumes all infants will respond in the same way, when in reality it may be different from infant to infant.

1. Asocial - behaviour for people and objects similar. preference for family. happy in presence of other people.

2. Indiscriminate - social behvaiour for people no objects. no stranger or separation anxiety.

3. Specific - stranger and separation anxiety. formed a specific attachment with primary attachment figure (offers most interaction)

4. Multiple - secondary attachments form.

Glasgow Study: 60 babies from working-class families. asked mothers about behaviour of children when they left the room (separation anxiety). asked mothers about behaviour towards unfamiliar adults (stranger anxiety).

babies develop attachment in stages. specific attachment was person who most interacted with baby's signals.

Unreliable Data: data was self-report data. mothers may not have all followed the same procedures in collecting data, honesty. therefore biased and reduced validity.

multiple attachments: not clear when children become capable of multiple attachments. most babies form attachments to a single main carer before they become capable of developing multiple attachments. Bowlby believed that this primary attachment had special significance. Rutter has argued that all attachment figures are equivalent, and all of them are integrated to produce an infant’s attachment type. difficult to try and identify the stages children go through as it is unclear if there are differences in their attachments or not.

Cultural Variations:only be applied to individualist cultures. does not account for the different types of childcare practices that may be more common in other cultures. collectivist cultures childcare is shared amongst many individuals, meaning that multiple attachments may be more common from a very early age. Sagi et al children raised in communal environments were less likely to have close attachments with their mothers than children raised in a family environment. different cultures may affect the way in which children form attachments.

Stage Theories: attachment occurs in stages. problem suggests that development is rather inflexible – all individuals go through the same process at the same points in their lives. theory states that single attachments come before multiple attachments. in other cultures such as collectivist children may have multiple carers. individual differences mean not everyone will experience the stages in the same way at the same time. Therefore, this theory can be a problem as it might mean that those who have a different experience may be seen as abnormal.

Sample Bias: all the families involved were from the same district and social class in the same city and at a time of over 50 years ago is a problem. Child-rearing practices vary from one culture to another and one historical period to another. research has shown that the number of stay-at-home dads has quadrupled in the past 25 years. these results therefore do not generalise well to other social and historical contexts – low validity.

majority of babies become attached to mother first. 3% father was the first attachment. 27% father and mother were joint.

attachment with father was at 18 months - infant protested when father walked away.

Grossman et al. - longitudinal study. father was less important for adolescent attachment than the quality of attachment with mother. fathers are less important in long-term emotional development.

Field - when fathers take on mother's role they adopt behaviour typical of mothers. primary caregiver fathers spent time imitating, smiling and holding babies. related to interactional synchrony and emotional attachment.

interactional synchrony is important when building a primary attachment with a baby. fathers can be the 'emotional' attachment figure. key to attachment is the responsiveness of the parent.

Inconsistent findings on fathers: Research is confusing because different researchers are interested in different research questions. some psychologists are interested in understanding the role fathers have as a secondary attachment figure whereas others are more concerned with the father as a primary attachment figure. one intended to see fathers as behaving differently from mothers and having a distinct role, whilst the other intended to find that fathers can take on a ‘maternal’ role. psychologists cannot easily answer  ‘what is the role of the father?’.

if fathers have a distinct role why aren’t children without fathers different: Grossman said fathers as secondary attachment figures had an important role in their children’s development. other studies found that children growing up in single or same-sex parent families do not develop any differently from those in two-parent heterosexual families. father’s role as a secondary attachment figure is not important.

research support: role of the father is as a 'playmate'. geiger found that fathers' play interactions were more fun than mother. mother's play interactions were more nurturing. confirms role of father is as a playmate and not a sensitive parent. mother takes on nurturing role.

Lorenz: divded goose eggs. one half lived with mother and ither half hatched in an incubator where Lorenz was the first moving object they saw. he mixed the goslings to see who would follow who. incubator group followed Lorenz and control group followed mother. identified a critical period in which imprinting takes place. if imprinting did not occur in time, chicks did not attach themselves with mother figure. sexual imprinting occurs when birds acquire template of desired characteristics required in a mate.

Harlow: 16 monkeys with wire model mothers. a plain wire mother dispensed milk. a cloth covered monkey. harlow observed how monkeys reacted when placed in frightening conditions (noisy mechanical bear). baby monkeys cuddled cloth-covered mother. suggests contact comfort was more important than food in attachment. monkeys sought comfort from cloth-covered mother when frightened. as adults, the depreived monkeys were more aggressive, less sociable and less skilled in mating.

Lorenz research support: supported by other studies that have demonstrated imprinting in animals. Guitton found that chicks exposed to yellow rubber gloves for feeding them in the first few weeks after their birth became imprinted on the gloves. Later on male chickens tried to mate with the gloves. animals are not born with a predisposition to imprint on a specific type of object, but will imprint on and demonstrate attachment behaviours towards any moving thing that is present during the critical period. early attachment type is linked to later reproductive behaviour.

criticisms: characteristics of imprinting have been questioned. believed that in imprinting the object imprinted on was somehow stamped irreversibly on the nervous system. now understood that imprinting is not so rigid. Guitton found that imprinting could be reversed with the chickens who had tried to mate with rubber gloves. After spending time with their own species they were able to engage in normal sexual behaviour with other chickens. imprinting may not be so different from learning as first thought. This is a problem for Lorenz, as he suggested that imprinting was irreversible, which has since been shown not to be the case.

Both Generalising Animal Studies to Human Behaviour: number of differences between humans and animals. humans have free will and that their behaviours are governed by conscious decisions. extent to which studies can be applied to humans is questionable.

Harlow Confounding Variables: method used. there were more differences between the two mothers than whether they had cloth or not. The two mothers also had different heads. This is a confounding variable as varied systematically within the independent variable. monkeys may have preferred one mother because she had a more attractive head. reduces the validity.

Ethical Issues: questionable whether the ethical implications of this study are justified for the understanding of attachment gained. the monkeys involved caused significant emotional distress and there were severe implications for their social and emotional development long-term. The harm was considerable enough that the experiment could not be carried out with humans. the method in which they were gained can be criticised for the harm it did to the animals involved.

Both studies have found that some animal attachment behaviours are mirrored in humans. Harlow’s findings are similar to Schaffer and Emerson’s that babies are not most attached to the person that feeds them, and Bowlby’s findings that humans seem to experience critical periods.

'cupboard love' emphasises importance of food in attachment formation.

ucs (food) leads to ucr (pleasure). ns (mother) provides food then becomes cs. the mother produces cr (pleasure). the attachment has formed. the caregiver becomes an attachment figure.

operant conditioning - crying leads to response from caregiver. when caregiver provides correct response, crying is reinforced because it produced pleasurable consequence.

caregiver receives negative reinforcement because crying stops (escaping something unpleasant). positive and negative reinforcement strengthens an attachment.

drive reduction theory = infant feels uncomfortable and experiences a ‘drive state’ – they have a drive to seek nourishment. motivates baby to reduce hunger and cry to get food. Receiving food is rewarding (positive reinforcement) and the child learns that food is a reward (primary reinforcer). the mother supplies food and is associated (classical conditioning) with the reward and becomes a secondary reinforcer. baby seeks to be with this person, because they are seen as a source of reward, and attachment behaviours are learnt via reinforcement. The attachment has been learned.

uses animal studies: based on studies with non-human animals (pigeons and dogs). Behaviourists argue humans are no different from animals in terms of learning; our behaviour patterns are constructed from the same basic stimulus-response relationship, and therefore it is legitimate to generalise from animal studies to human behaviour. non-behaviourists argue that attachments are far too complex to be explained in such simple terms. Attachment involves innate predispositions  and mental activity that cannot be explained in terms of conditioning. This matters because behaviourist explanations may present an oversimplified or ‘reductionist’ version of human behaviour and attachment.

Good Explanatory Power: Infants do learn through association and reinforcement, however, food may not be the most important reinforcer. It is possible that parental attention and responsiveness are important rewards that assist in the formation of attachment; however, these were not part of the learning theory explanation. This shows that even though learning theory does not provide a complete explanation of attachment, it still has some value in explaining how attachments form.

drive reduction no longer used: outdated. there are many examples of human behaviour that increase discomfort, rather than reduce. some people engage in extreme activities, such as bungee jumping, which increase discomfort. humans are not always motivated to reduce discomfort and the underlying principles of drive reduction theory are outdated.

evolutionary explanation - attachment gives a survival advantage. imprinting and attachment evolved because they ensure young animals stay close to caregivers and protects them from hazards.

monotropic because emphasises child's attachment to one caregiver. more time a baby spent with primary attachment figure, the better. law of continuity - better quality attachment and law of accumalated separation - effects of separation add up (safest dose is a zero dose).

babies are born with innate 'cute' behaviours that encourage attention from adults. purpose is to activate adult social interaction. recognised thar attachment is a reciprocal system.

there is a critical period of two years when infant attachment system is active. if an attachment has not formed in this time, a child will find it harder to form one later.

child forms a mental representation of relationship with primary attachment figure. 'template' for what relationships are like. first relationship with reliable caregiver will form an expectation that all relationships are loving and reliable. first relationship with poor treatment may expect such treatment from others. internal working model may affect child't ability to be a parent.

Is Attachment Adaptive: early infant behvaiour infants become attached during a critical period of three-six months, at the same time human infants start to crawl. therefore vital  infants form and maintain  attachment during this time, so caregivers can protect them. supports Bowlby’s view that attachments are adaptive.

Sensitive Rather Than Critical: criticism ‘critical period’. Rutter et al found that although the idea of a critical period is true to an extent, infants are still able to form an attachment outside this window. Researchers now use ‘sensitive period’ to illustrate possibility infants can still form attachments after six months. Bowlby’s original idea of a ‘critical period’ was not accurate and ‘sensitive period’ more appropriate.

Multiple Attachment vs Monotropy: research support for ‘monotropy’. Prior and Glaser concluded a hierarchical model of attachment, which places emphasis on one central person ‘higher’ than others, is more likely than multiple attachments. central person has special significance and contributes to healthy emotional development. supports Bowlby’s concept of monotropy and idea that one special attachment plays a significant role in emotional development.

Continuity Hypothesis: support Minnesota parent-child study. Sroufe et al followed participants from infancy to late adolescence and found continuity between early attachments and later emotional/social behaviour. Individuals classified as securely attached were rated highly for social competence later in childhood. less isolated, more popular and more empathetic. supports Bowlby’s continuity hypothesis as demonstrates a link between early and later attachments.

Alternative Explanation: criticism temperament hypothesis. Belsky and Rovine found infants between one and three days old with signs of behavioural instability were later judged to be insecurely attached. suggests an infant’s innate emotional personality may explain later attachment behaviour. supports temperament hypothesis and suggests Bowlby’s monotropic theory may not provide a complete explanation of attachment.

Ainsworth developed strange situation to asses quality of baby's attachement to caregiver. controlled observation procedure in a lab with a two-way mirror.

five caterogies:

1. proximity seeking - well-attached stay close to caregiver.

2. exploration and secure-base behaviour - good attachment makes a baby confident to explore, using caregiver as point of safety.

3. stranger anxiety - desplayed by well-attached babies.

4. separation anxiety - displayed by well-attached babies

5. response to reunion - well-attached are enthusiastic

baby encouraged to explore by caregiver. stranger enters and talks to caregiver, approaches baby. caregiver leaves. caregiver returns, stranger leaves. caregiver leaves baby alone. stranger returns. caregiver returns.

secure attachment (type B 60-75%): babies happy to explore. moderate separation anxiety and stranger anxiety. requires and accepts comfort from caregiver on reunion.

insecure-avoidant attachment (type a 20-25%): explore freely. does not seek proximity. little or no separation and stranger anxiety. avoids contact at reunion.

insecure-resistant attachment (type c 3%): explores less. seeks greater proximity. considerable stranger and separation anxiety. resists comfort when reunited

Fourth Type of Attachment: Main and Solomon analysed over 200 Strange Situation videotapes and proposed a fourth types of attachment: Insecure-disorganised (Type D). infants don’t appear to have a consistent type of attachment. lack a coherent strategy for dealing with the stress of separation. show very strong attachment behaviour which may be suddenly followed by avoidance. Ainsworth’s study limited as does not fully account for all of the different attachment types.

High Reliability: Inter-rater reliability important in observed studies as researchers need to agree on how to classify the behaviours they are observing. Ainsworth’s study had an inter-rater reliability rating of 94%. possible to be confident that attachment type an infant is identified as is correct and does not just depend on who is observing them.

Real-World Application: Understanding attachment type allow for interventions to be put in place. Cooper et al. teaches caregivers to better understand their infants’ signals of distress and to increase their understanding of being anxious. showed decrease in number of caregivers classified as disorganised and increase in number of infants classed as securely attached. Supports research on attachment types as can be used to improve children’s lives.

Validity: Only tested babies with mothers. questioned whether study is measuring attachment type infant’s quality of relationship with mother. Main and Weston found children behaved differently depending on the parent they were with. Suggests classification attachment type might not be valid because we are measuring a relationship rather than a personal characteristic of the individual.

Maternal Reflective Functioning: Ainsworth suggested attachment linked to maternal sensitivity. Other studies found low correlations between measures of maternal sensitivity and strength of attachment Slade et al. found greater role for maternal reflective functioning. Reflective functioning is ability to understand what someone else is thinking and feeling. Slade et al suggest maternal reflective thinking rather than sensitivity may be central mechanism in establishing attachment type.

van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg: looked at proportion of secure, insecure-avoidant anf insecure-resistant attachment in other countries. looked at differences within same country to get an idea of variation in cultures. found 32 studies of attachment where strange situation was used. conducted un 8 countries, 15 in the us. 1990 children. data was meta-analysed. secure attachment was the most common in all countries but ranged rom 50% in china to 75% in britain. individualist rates of insecure-resistant was higher to Ainsworth's original sample (all uner 14%) but true for collectivist samples from china, japan and israel (above 25%). cultural diffferences in distribution of insecure attachment. variations between results within same country were greated than those between countries. in us, one study was 46% and another was 90%.

other studies: simonelli et al. assessed 76 babies in italy using strange situation to see if the attachment types matched previous studies. jin et al. compared attachment types of 87 korean babies to proportions of other studies. simonelli et al. found 50% were secure, 36% insecure-avoidant. lower rate of secure may be because increasingly mothers worked long hours and use more childcare. cultural differences affect patterns of attachment. jin et al. found similar patterns of secure and insecure attachment. pattern similar to japan - similar child-rearing practices.

Imposed Etic: issue of validity when using ‘Strange Situation’ to measure attachment type in other cultures. designed by an American, and related to cultural assumptions American researcher. Trying to apply a theory or technique designed for one culture to another in known as imposed etic, which disregards cultural uniqueness. Western cultures, ‘willingness to explore’ is seen as a sign of secure attachment, however in Japanese cultures dependence rather than independence would be seen as a sign of secure attachment. As a result of using an imposed etic, Japanese infants may appear insecurely attached according to Western criteria, whereas they are securely attached by Japanese standards, thus casting doubt on the validity of the tools used.

Meta-Analyses: population validity is usually high as sample size is much greater, making sample more representative of a wider group of people. results are more likely to be generalisable to large number of people. Any individual differences and anomalies are likely to be reduced and minimised in such a large sample, enhancing validity of the findings. Allows us to reach an overall conclusion by assessing many different findings, and being able to statistically test. Ethically sound as it uses all secondary data meaning that no more children had to be put through the potentially traumatic ‘strange situation’ procedure.

Countries not Cultures: Within each country tested there can be many different subcultures with different childcare practices – the study did not account for this. Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi  found in Tokyo distributions of attachment were quite similar to Western studies, whilst a more rural sample in Japan found an over-representation of insecure-resistant individuals. Therefore possible that reason the original study found more variation within cultures than between country is because data was collected on different subcultures within each country.

Similarities Not Innately Determined: Bowlby argues the reason for universal similarities in forming attachments is because attachment is innate and therefore unaffected by culture. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg argue some cultural similarities may be explained by the effects of mass media which spread ideas about parenting, and as a result children all over the world are exposed to similar influences. Therefore cultural similarities may be due to increasing global culture.

continuous emotional care is necessary for normal development.

bowlby believed mother-love in infancy is as important for mental health as vitamins and proteins are for physical health.

seperation means child is not physically in presence of primary attachment figure. deprivation means losing emotuinalk care as a result of separation.

if a child is separated from their mother for an extended time for the first 2 and a half years, psychological damage is inevitable.

if a child is deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period. this may lead to mental retardation. Goldfarb found lower IQs in children from institutions compared to foster children.

lack of emotional care may lead to affectionless psychopathy. prevents person from developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality.

44 delinquent teenagers accused of stealing. all 'thieves' were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy (lack of guilt, affection and empathy). families were interviewed to establish separations from mother.

14 of 44 could be described as affectionless psychopaths. 12 had experienced prolonged separation from mothers in first 2 years of life.

only 5 of the remaining 30 had experienced separations. prolonged early separation causes affectionless psychopathy.

Correlational Methodology: key supporting research uses correlational method. only establishes relationship between two variables: frequency of separation and likelihood of becoming an affectionless psychopath. Bowlby used samples of children orphaned during WWII, children growing up in poor quality orphanages and his 44 thieves study to study maternal deprivation. All of these sources are flawed as evidence due to their experiences, such as growing up in post-war conditions for example, which may have also caused later developmental difficulties. cause and effect cannot be established and it is difficult to draw conclusions with confidence and generalise the findings. validity of the theory is lowered.

Evidence May Be Poor: key supporting research relies on self-report and retrospective data, much of which was collected by Bowlby himself. because the data was self-reported, the results may have been affected by social desirability bias and results may be inaccurate. In addition, data was collected by Bowlby, bias. results cannot be considered as totally accurate and free from bias or inaccuracies, meaning the extent to which conclusion can be generated is limited. methodological issues, reduces theory’s validity.

Counter-Evidence: research findings contradict theory. Lewis replicated study on a larger scale with 500 young people. in this sample, a history of prolonged separation from the mother did not predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships. Bowlby’s theory is limited as findings appear to suggest that other factors may affect an individual’s outcomes.

Critical or Sensitive Period: Bowlby argued psychological damage would inevitably take place if a child experienced prolonged separation during the critical period. research has shown that damage is not inevitable. twin boys from Czechoslovakia. boys were isolated from the age of 18 months to age 7, but were subsequently looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully from their earlier experiences. evidence suggests that the period Bowlby identified is more of a ‘sensitive’ one rather than ‘critical’.

Deprivation or Privation: Rutter argued that Bowlby had muddled two concepts. He therefore drew a distinction between deprivation, the loss of the primary attachment figure after the formation of attachment, whereas privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place. Rutter argued that the severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be the result of privation. limited as it does not consider the difference between privation and deprivation and the different effects they have on later development.

English and Romanian adoptee study: 165 romanian orphans who experienced poor conditions before adopted in the ul. longitudinal stuy tested extent to which good care makes up for poor early experiences in institutions. study used control group of 52 adopted uk children. half orphans delayed in intellectual development when arriving in uk. recovery rates related to age of adoption (before six months has IQ 102. after 2 years IQ 77). disinhibited attachment related to age of adoption. after 6 months clingy, attention-seeking and indiscriminate affection. rare in children after 6 months. findings support Bowlby's view of sensitive period - failure to form attachment has long-lasting effects.

Bucharest intervention project: researchers used strange situation to assess attachment in 95 romanian children who lived in institutional care. compared to control group of 50 who never experienced institutional care. 19% institutionalised were securely attached. 44% had disinhibited attachment.

disinhibited attachment: equally friendly and affectionate. due to adaption to ultiple caregivers.

damage to intellectual development: intellectual disability

Real-life Application: increased understanding of effects of institutionalization and has resulted in many real-life applications. many improvements in how children are cared for in institutions have been implemented. because of awareness of the effects of institutionalization on attachment, children in care now only have one or two key people who play a central role in the child’s care, called a key worker. allows children to develop normal attachments and avoid developing disinhibited attachment. research studies are very beneficial as allow researchers to recommend positive changes in real-life to try to prevent any negative or harmful consequences of institutionalization.

Few Extraneous Variables: allowed researchers to investigate effects of institutionalisation with fewer extraneous variables. Much of the research studies into institutionalization before Roman orphan studies involved children that had experienced loss or trauma before they were institutionalized (neglect/abuse). children were often traumatised by their experience, making it hard to observe the effects of institutionalization without there being any confounding variables. variables often were not a problem. On the other hand in the Romanian orphan studies, these confounding variables often were not a problem. strength studies have higher internal validity than previous research into institutionalization.

Longitudinal Studies: longitudinal research into the effects of institutionalization. In Rutter’s ERA study, children’s development was tracked over an eleven-year period. allows researchers to also examine how these effects change over time. strength that they allow us to understand the effects of institutionalization at different points across many years of an individual’s life.

Individual Differences: research suggests that individuals who do not form an attachment within the sensitive period are unable to recover, this is not true of all children. Some children are not strongly affected by institutionalism and children in institutions might receive special attention and had some type of attachment experience. findings of institutionalism are not universal and some children can recover from the negative effects of institutionalism.

Romanian Orphanages Were Unusually Poor Level of Care: Romanian orphanages had particularly poor standards of care, especially in relation to forming relationships with the children and the extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation. possible conditions in these orphanages were so bad that the results cannot be applied to understanding the impact of better quality institutional care or any other situation where children experience deprivation. unusual situational variables mean the studies may lack generalisability.

quality of first attachment is crucial because provides template that affects future relationships. internal working model.

good attachment = good relationship expectations. seek out functional relations and behave functionally.

bad attachment = bad relationship expectations. struggle to form relationships. do not behave appropriately.

securely attached have best quality childhood frienships (kerns). securely attached less likely to be involved in bullying whereas insecure-avoidant are victims and insecure-resistant are bullies.

people base parenting style on internal working model. bailey et el. - majority of mothers had same attachment with babies as with their own mothers.

hazan and shaver: analysed 620 replies to 'love quiz'. quiz assessed current relationship, general love experiences and attachment type. secure were most likely to have a good and longer-lasting. avoidant tended to be jealous and fear intimacy.

evidence on continuity is mixed: internal working models predict continuity between the security of an infant’s attachment and that of its later relationships, research findings should demonstrate this continuity. research findings are mixed, some supporting the continuity, but other studies finding no evidence of continuity. Zimmerman assessed infant attachment type and adolescent attachment to parents and found very little relationship between the quality of infant and adolescent attachment. theory is limited as if internal working models did predict continuity in attachment type and later relationships then all research should find evidence to support this, which is not the case.

validity of supporting studies: Most studies of attachment to primary caregivers do not use the Strange Situation but assess infant-parent attachment years later through interviews or questionnaires. creates validity problems as studies are using self-reported and retrospective data. data at risk of being inaccurate due to people remembering inaccurately or demonstrating social desirability. much of the research lacks validity, reducing validity of the theory itself and meaning it is limited as an explanation of continuity between infant attachment and quality of later relationships.

cause and effect: many of the studies use a correlational methodology, meaning that whilst an association between the two can be established, cause and effect cannot. possible that the continuity may be down to another factor (temperament). Belsky and Rovine observed babies aged 1-3 days and found that those babies that had been calmer and less of a hassle were more likely to go on to be securely attached than difficult babies. possible an individual’s temperament influences the quality of relationships from infancy to adulthood.

theory is deterministic: attachment type in infancy will determine the quality of that individual’s later relationships. majority of research suggests early experiences have a fixed effect on later adulthood relationships, and therefore, children who are insecurely attached at age one, are doomed to experience unsatisfactory relationships as adults. determinist as is not the case for everyone. people enjoy happy adult relationships despite being insecurely attached as infants. limited as deterministic and cannot explain cases where individuals attachment type in infancy is different to their relationship quality in later life.

self-report methodology: individual’s internal working model is unconscious and individuals are not directly aware of their influence on them. not possible to expect that interviews or questionnaires will provide direct evidence about an individual’s internal working model. When participants self-report their relationships therefore, they are only reporting their conscious understanding of those relationships. research support is limited for this theory as much of the data is likely to be indirect evidence at best due to it being the individual’s interpretation of their relationships rather than a direct measurement.

alternative explanation: bowlby's theory may provide a better explanation. bowlby's theory has many advantages in comparison to learning theory. for example, bowlby's theory can explain why attachments form whereas learning theory only explains how attachments form. bowlby's theory outlines the benefits of attachment, which are not explained through learning theory. bowlby's theory provides a more complete explanation of attachment.