Attachment

Is a 2 way emotional bond between 2 individuals which develops over time

Maccoby (1980) suggests that there are 4 key attachment behaviours:

• seeking proximity
• seperation anxiety
• pleasure when reunited
• general orientation

Reciprocity (respond to actions)

• 2 emotions and behaviours synchronise
• (Meltzoff and Moore - controlled observation) 1. adult conducted facial experssion 2. dummy put in mouth to prevent initial response 3. response recorded
• suggests: behaviours are innate

TRONICK: (still face experiment) supports Meltzoff and Moore

• some suggest a PSUEDO IMMITATION (fake)
• Piaget (1962) suggests that true imitation develops at end of 1st year, also suggests behaviours done for a reward. Done for recognition not to build attachment. (unconcious)

Positive:

• many studies show patterns of interaction
• babies don't know they are beingg observed - good validity
• it was an observational study, later analysed

Negative:

• only hand movements and expressions recorded
• difficult to interpretate infants perspective
• can't know for certain if this has any meaning within attachment

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that majority of babies became attached to mothers first

Afterwards, secondary attachments were formed - (father figure at 18 months, mother at 9)

Role of the father: Study carried out testing behaviour of parents andd attachment into teen years, showed that the quality of infant attachment related into adolescence but not w/ fathers.

Suggested that fathers have a different role in attachment, one more based on play and stimulation, less to do with nursing.

Fathers as primary care-givers:

When this role has to be taken on, they develop behaviours typical of mothers.

Fathers can be more nursing, key to attachment is level of responsiveness not gender

Inconsistent findings on fathers:

• some psychologists interested in secondary attachment, others primary
• 1st sees different father behaviours to mothers
• second sees father in maternal role

Why aren't children w/out fathers different?:

• Fathers w/ secondary attachment have important roles
• other studies contradict: single sex families do NOT develop any differently, suggests secondary attachment not as important

Why don't fathers generally take on primary attachment?:

• traditional gender roles, women expected to nurture
• Hormone levels - (oestrogen) creates higher levels of nurturing - women biologically predisposed to take the role

Method:

• 60 babies, all from Glasgow mostly from skilled working class
• Babies and mums visited every month for 1st 12, revisited at 18
• Mums asked questions about babies protest during everday seperations - measures rate of attachment / seperation anxiety. Asked about stranger anxiety

Evaluation:

• + sample size, large, range of results
• + visited every month, constant cycle, age gaps - longitudinal design
• + babies in comfortable environment - familiar
• - working class limits wider picture - cultural bias
• - limitied research to one specific area - cultural bias
• -asked mothers, never did experiments - unreliable data

Findings: 6-7 months - 50% seperation anxiety. Reciprocity shown, secure attachment. 10  months - 80% showed specific attachament to PCG - 20% multiple attachments

(based on Schaffer and Emmersons research)

Stage 1: Asocial Stage(birth - 2months)

• human and non human babies act similarly
• preference to familiar adult (comfort)
• reciporcity and interactional synchrony play a big role

Stage 2: Indiscriminate Stage (2-7 months)

• more social behaviour
• preference to people over objects
• prefer familiar adults, recognition
• do not usually show stranger/ seperation anxiety yet

Stage 3: Specific Attachment: (7+months)/Discriminate Stage

• Stronger seperation and stranger anxiety
• Baby forms specific attachment to PCG

Stage 4: Multiple Attachment: (once main attachment has formed)

• Attachments to adults whom spend regular time with
• S+E found 29% of babies formed multiple attachments
• age 1 = majority had developed multiple attachments
• seperation anxiety can occur in secondary attachment

Evaluation:

• - difficult to rely on observations
• cannot be clear on exactly when multiple attachments form; we know WHEN they happen, most research is after primary attachment, and for some cultures multiple caregivers is norm
• - seperation anxiety is distress, doesn't mean it involves attachment
• stage theories = development isn't flexible

helps us understand in humans

Lorenz:

• Split gosling eggs into 2 groups, 1 group with mother, other in incubator
• When incubator eggs hatched, first thing they saw was Lorenz.
• Both groups IMPRINTED on first thing that they saw
• Groups either followed their other or Lorenz even when brought together - no recognition of gosling mother

Critical Period: suggest if animal is not exposed to moving object in early period will not imprint

imprinting similar to attachment, bond formed between animal and caregiver.

Sexual Imprinting:

• Lorenz investigated relationship between imprinting on adult male
• Animals (birds/tortoises) that had imprinted on a human, displayed courtship towards humans

Harlow: 

• wire mother and cloth mother (went to cloth for security and comfort and wire mother fed baby monkey)
• Put into a strange situation - seeks comfort
• Contact comfort is more important than food to monkeys
• CONSEQUENCES OF EXPERIMENT: Abnormal developments, were Socially Abnormal (ran away from other monkeys) and Sexually Abnormal (showed unusual mating behaviours, didn't comfort own babies)
• critical period for behaiours to be reversed: - need to spend time with other monkeys by 3 months, if not exposed by 6 - unable to recover

Evaluation:

• + importance of attachment, understand risk factors, helped care of monkeys in captivity. Generalised to humans - supports Schaffers views about comfort over food
• - ethical issues, some say wire mothers facial expressions varied

(learning through observation and imitating behaviours that are rewarded - ALL BEHAVIOURS ARE LEARNT (behaviourists))

CLASSICAL CONDITIONING - ATTACHMENT

1. Before   FOOD (uncondtioned stimulus) ---- HAPPY BABY (unconditioned response)

2. During MOTHER (neutral stimulus) + FOOD (ucs) ---- HAPPY BABY (ucr)

3. After MOTHER (conditioned stimulus) ----- HAPPY BABY (conditioned response)

baby sees mother as conditoned response, learnt through the social learning theory that the mother is associated w/ pleasureable things - food. Therefore forming an attachment to mother as the primary source of attachment as she provides food and comfort.

OPERANT CONDITIONING - ATTACHMENT

INFANT CRIES -- INFANT IS FED -- INFANT STOPS CRYING

• Infant recieves pleasure from being fed which is rewarding - POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT
• Cries to recieve food, more likely reoccur
• Food becomes PRIMARY REINFORCER as provides the reward
• Person who provides food is SECONDARY REINFORCER

attachment occurs because infant seeks the person that can provide the reward

• Caregiver is recieving NEGATIVE REINFORCMENT, crying stops - avoided something unpleasant
• Mutual reinforcement strengthens attachment

attachment formed because baby is reliant on food, caregiver reinforces this in either way. Infant seeks the person that can provide this - secondary reinforcer

Banduras Theory: Links to attachment, learning through role models. Watch behaviours, suggesting we learn from surroundings

Evaluation:

• + behaviourists believe we behave same as animals - generalised between animals. Able to generalise Pavlov and Skinner
• + learning theory has value - although may be flawed/ alternative stimuli
• - suggests food is key element (link to Harlow, Lorenz, Schaffer and Emmerson)
• - behaviourists explanations lack validity - oversimplify and do not take GENETICS into account
• - Lorenz - imprinting shows who they see first, not who feeds them is reason for attachment
• - Harlows monkeys want contact comfort over food
• - S&E - primary attachement to mother even though caregiver did most of the feeding - suggests biological
• - limited - doesn't explain how secondary re-inforcers work
• Bowlby's theory was more popluar, more advantages

Evolutionary Theory: strong attachment and consequences of attachment are adaptive, traits that increase chance of survival are naturally selected

• suggested that attachment is a behavioural system that has evolved
• suggested children have an INNATE desire to attach for long term benefits
• innate - product of genetic factors, could be seen as IMPRINTING

Bolwby's Monotropic Attachment Theory:

• 1 special attachment w/ mother - if not mother subsitute
• CRITICAL PERIOD for attachment --- 3-6 months
• if it isn't formed in this period, effects for rest of life
• attachment determined by SENSITIVITY not food
• SOCIAL RELEASERS - innate mechanism esure attachment (e.g smiles, kisses, cuddles)
• MONOTROPY: (one adult, mono) Attachment needs to be with primay caregiver, more time spent - stronger the attachment

INTERNAL WORKING MODEL: suggests infants form a mental representation of relationship w/ PCG - influencal in later life

Evalution

• + Minnesota Study - found children who were securely attached, rated later as being popular teens, socially able, confident. Supports Continuity Hypothesis
• + Hazan and Shaver: gathered info - found securely attached found loving, trusting relationships. Insecurely attached - likey to be divorced. Supports Internal Working Model
• + As a result of study led to changes in infant care - encourage skin on skin contact to helo 'bonding' after birth
• - Unfair to generalise animal behaviours to humans
• - Temperament Hypothesis - no IWM but an innate personality is being shown in the 'Strange Situation'
• - More accurate to use a Sensitive Period - adopted children able to form attachments after 2 years

Experiment took mother out of a room, replaced with a stranger ect. to see how baby reacted they looked at:

• Seperation anxiety
• Infants willingness to explore
• Stranger anxiety
• Reunion behaviour
• SECURE ATTACHMENT (70%): explored, subdued when mother left, greeted politely on return, moderate avoidance of stranger. Mothers = sensitive
• INSECURE AVOIDENT (15%): didn't orientate to mother, little interest on absence or return, avoided stranger but not as much as mother. Mothers = sometimes ignored infants
• INSECURE RESISTANT (15%): intense distress on mother departure, rejected her on return, mixed feelings to stranger, similar pattern of resistance and interest shown to mother. Mothers = showed mixed emotions

Critism: needs to be tested in real world, primary caregiver may not be used in experiment, always American Middle Class - generalising. Could be distressing the child

Van Ljzendooren and Krooneberg (1988):  studied over 2000 Strange Situations in 8 different countries to see if INTER-CULTURAL differences existed (differences between cultures/countries) and INTRA-CULTURAL differences existed (studied in the same area)

*collectivist culture = Israel, Japan (more increase avoidant because they would have more than one primary caregiver - not much variation

Conclusion:

• Global pattern across cultures appears to be similar to Ainsowrth's study of 'Strange Situations'
• Secure attachment is the 'norm' -- surviving
• supports secure attachment is the 'best' for healthy, social and emotional development
• supports belief behaviour is innate and a biological procrss
• supports Bowlby's evolutionary theory that children attach for survival, supported by secure attachment

Against

• Mass media - Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg suggest similarities might be explained by mass media, spreading ideas about parenting - exposed to similar influences. May not be due to innate biological influences -- against Bowlby's theory
• Comparing Cultures - they concluded about culrutal differences not comparing. More variation within cultures than between - because data was collected on dif. subcultures
• The 'Tools' used - related to cultural assumptions. Japanese study showed dependence rather than independence showed attachment (against secure attachment) - Japanese child appears to be insecurely attached

For

• Large samples - benefit of research is that psychologists should be able to produce indienous theories - small set on universal principles
• Evidence supports universality of attachment from dif. countries. Sensitivity = independence, sensitivity = secure attachment
• Prior and Glaser conclude expressions may vaey - but core concepts are universal

Maternal Deprivation: seperation of mother, mother subsitute to an infant

Hyothesis: intimate relationship is neceassary for healthy emotional development - essential

ST --- 3 Stages of Distress - protest, despair, dettachment

LT --- mental health problems, reduced intelligence, increased agression, affectionless psychopathy

44 Juvenile Thieves (Bowlby 1944) Procedure: all from a child guidance clinic - emotionally maladjusted. Studied 88 children; 44 controlled group, 44 had been caught stealing - suggest they were categorised as 'afectionless psychopath'

Findings:

• 44 thieves had experienced early seperation, 44 normal had not whereas 39% had
• included reg. hospital visits/foster homes w/out visits from family, early seperation = A/less P

Strengths:  - Animal Studies show the effects of maternal deprivation - LT effects. Levy showed seperating baby rats from mother at as little as one day had permanent effect

Weaknesses: 

• Poor evidence - children from WW2 ,Would be the cause for later development issues rather than seperation. Carried it out himself, knowing what he wanted to achieve.
• Counter Evidence - 44 Thieves study was contradicted, Lewis suggested it didn't cause difficulty w/ relationships. Suggests other factors are the cause
• Sensitive Period - Koluchova case shows it may not be a critical period but a senisitive one; damage is not inevitable. Can be cured w/ good aftercare and interaction
• Privation instead of Deprivation - Rutter suggested being muddled together, privation is struggling w/ attachment in the first place. LT damage is not deprivation but privation
• Unreliable Data - parents may have given inaccurate seperation info, don't know how child was cared for during seperations
• Causations - MDH suggests freq. early seperations + emotional maladjustment are cause

e.g. Children from unhappy homes may be more prone to illness -- leads to more time in hospital = emotional maladjustment

Meaning an unhappy home would be the causal factor and not the seperations.

Deprivation vs Privation

Rutter et al critised Bowlby's view of deprevation, said Bowlby over-simplified

• Privation = child failing to attach
• Deprevation = losing an attachment that was once there

EVAL: Loss of care/ damage to the value of care may not have as serious effect as being unable to attach at all

Romanian Orphan Study - Rutter and Songua Barke (2010)

Findings:

• Romanian children fell behind UK children; in physical, mental and emotional development
• Children adopted the earliest - sooner they caught up w/ UK (critical periods ect.)
• By 4 yrs, most had caught up
• Adopted after 6 months -- more likely to show attachment disorder and relationship problems

Other Studies:

• Le Mare and Audet (2006) reported findings from a longitudinal study of 360 RO in Canada, Dependant Variables: growth and health
• Adopted Orphans - physically smaller than a matched control gorup @ 4 and 1/2 years
• Difference disappeared by 10 and 1/2, same for physcial health
• Suggest recovery is possible
• 'Strange Situations' - institutionalised children showed signs of disinhibited attachment

Effects of Institutionalisation:

• Physical under-development
• Intellectual underfunctioning
• Disinhibited attachment (form of insecure attachment - do not discriminate between caregivers, often over friendly)
• Poor parenting in the future

Evaluation:

• + Individual Differences: not as affected as others, Rutter suggested some were favoured in early attachment. Bowbly showed no differences in way children cope
• + Real - Life Application: improved the lives of children, changed way they were looked at, suggests importance of early adoption - formation of early secure attachments
• + Value of Longitudinal Studies: many years carried out study, large benefits. W/out this -- mistakenly conclude effects that may have changed over time

Evaluation:

•  - Deprivation is only one factor: it isn't the only thing that effects them; poor physical conditions, lack of stimulation, damage, poverty
• - Institutionalisation may just be slow development: effects disappear over time w/ good quality care, exinstituional children need more time to mature sufficently. --- Critism as it implies effects may be irreversible, may not be true. Le Mare and Audet found physical underdevelopment improved by 11

Hazan and Shaver; printed love quiz in local paper 620 responses: 415 women, 205 men. They were questioning attitudes towards love and current and childhood attachment.

Findings:

• Attachments similar to those found in infancy: 56% Secure, 25% Avoidant, 19% Resistant
• Correlation between attachment type and love experiences
• Relationship between attachment type and conception of love

Behaviours influenced by Internal Working Model:

• Childhood Friendships - Minnesota child-parent found links in behaviour, securely attached children have higher expectations, easier relationships
• Poor Parenting: Harlow and Quinton et al proved this, lack of IWM, lack of reference for own
• Romantic Relationships: Hazan and Shaver
• Mental Health: lack of attachment in critical period = lack of IWM. Attachment Disorder: lack of preffered attachment figure, unable to interact/relate. Distinct physciatric condition.

• - Research is Correlational: it is not experimental, can't claim that attachment and later love styles is one of cause and effect. An intervening variable could be cause, e.g. an innate temperament effects how parent interacts = determine infant attachment type (may explain issues w/ later relationships
• - Retrospective Classification: when asking adults questions, memories from infancy are likley to be flawed or inaccurate
• - Low Correlations: not all results found strong + correlations, Fraley found a range of correlations
• - Alternative Explanations: Feeney argues may be properties of adult relationship rather than indivd attachments, adults guided by self-verification process (seek to confirm expectations), adult secure relationship causes adult attachment type.
• - Overly Determinist: found that early attachment isnt fixed, Simpson et Al support
• + Retrospective Classification: longitudinal study assessed it at 1 yrs, secure infant = social competence, closer to friends, ect. Supports attachment type predicts relationship type in adult
• + Low Correlations: suggesed reason for low correlations may be because of insecure-anxious attachment is more unstable - pulling down correlations