Attachment

Babies have periodic alert phases and signal they are ready for interaction - mother's respond approx two-thirds of the time (Feldman and Eidleman 2007)

Interactional synchrony = mirroring - when the mother and infants actions and emotions mirror eachother

• Meltzof and Moore (1977) observed the beginnings of interactional synchrony in infants aged 2 weeks old - adult displayed one of three facial expressions/gestures and child's response was filmed - an association was found between adults expression/gesture and the action of the child
• synchrony provides necessary foundation for mother and infant connection which can be built upon in subsequent years - Isabella et al (1989) observed 20 mothers and infants together and assessed degree of synchrony and quality of attachment - found high synchrony = high quality attachment

Reciprocity - one person responds to the other

• involves close attention to eachother's verbal signals and facial expressions
• from 3 months reciprocity is increasingly frequent 

Difficult to know what is happening from the infants POV based on actions and expressions - can't be sure whether infant's imitation of adult signals are conscious/deliberate
cannot be certain behaviours observed in interactions have a special meaning

Well-controlled procedures:

• interactions filmed from multiple angles and details can be observed later 
• Babies don't know they're being observed - doesn't suffer from demand characteristics

Studies have good validity

Mother-infant intercations are socially sensitive - suggests children may be disadvantaged by particular child-rearing practices, particularly mothers who return to work shortly after birth restrict opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony - suggests mother's shouldn't return to work so soon - has obvious socially sensitive impliactions

Value to society - Crotwell et al (2013) found that a 10 min Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) improved interactional synchrony in 20 low-income mothers and their infants - research can lead to valuable methods for improving/developing mother-infant attachments 

• Schaffer and Emerson (1964) studied primary attachments:
• majority of babies become attached to their mother first at around 7 months
• In 3% of cases = father primary attachment, 27% = joint with the mother
• Within a few weeks/months a secondary attachment is formed
• In 75% of infants an attachment was formed with the father by the age of 18 months
• Grossmann (2002) carried out a longitudinal study looking at parent-infant relationships and quality of attachment into their teens
• found quality of attachment with father was less important in the attachment type of the teenagers than quality of attachment with the mother - father's may be less important in long-term emotional development
• However the quality of father's play with infants was related to children's attachment - suggests that father's have a different role in attachment - more to do with play than nurturing
  
• Field (1978) studied the father as a primary caregiver:
• filmed 4 month old babies - found that primary caregiver fathers (like mothers) spent more time smiling, imitating, holding infants than secondary caregiver fathers - important actions in building attachment
• Suggests the key to attachment is the level of responsiveness not the gender of the parent

• Grossman (2002) found fathers as secondary attachment figures had an important and distinct role in their children's development, involving play and stimulation
• Other studies such as McCallum and Golombok (2004) found that children growing up in single or same sex parent families don't develop differently from those in two-parent families
• suggests that the father's role as a secondary attachment figure is not important

Research fails to provide a clear answer about fathers and primary attachments: 

• answer could be related to traditional gender roles - women are expected to be more caring and nurturing than men - father's simply don't feel they should act in this way
• or could be that female hormones create higher levels of nurturing - women are biologically predisposed to be primary attachment figures

preconceptions about how fathers behave are created by common discussions about mothers and fathers parenting behaviour - stereotypes = unintentional observer bias (observer see what they expect to see) - conclusions on role of the father are hard to disentangle from social biases 

• Asocial stage (first few weeks): 
• Babies behaviour to objects and humans is similar
• Some preference for familiar adults (eg. more easily calmed by them)
• Happier in the presence of other humans
• Indiscriminate attachment (2-7 months):
• Babies display more observable social behaviour, with preference for people over objects
• Recognise and prefer familiar adults
• Babies do not show stranger or separation anxiety
• Attachment is indiscriminate bcos it's the same towards all
• Specific attachment (approx 7 months):
• Formed specific attachment with primary caregiver and show separation/stranger anxiety
• In most cases this is the person who offers the most interaction and responds to the babies signals with the most skill (biological mother in 65% of cases)
• Multiple attachments (by 1 year):
• In Schaffer and Emerson's study, 29% of babies had secondary (multiple) attachments within a month of forming primary attachment, and by the age of 1 year the majority of infants had secondary attachments

Procedure

• 60 babies from Glasgow from working-class families were visited at home every month for a year, and then again at 18 months
• Separation anxiety measured by asking mothers about their child's behaviour during everyday separations (eg. adult leaving the room)
• Stranger anxiety was measured by asking mothers question's about child's anxiety response to unfamiliar adults

Findings

• 50% of babies showed separation anxiety towards a particular adult between 25 and 32 weeks of age - specific primary attachment was usually the mother
• Attachment tended to be the caregiver who was most interactive amd sensitive to infant signals and facial expressions (ie. reciprocity) - not necessarily who the infant spent most time with

most observations were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to researchers so the behaviour of babies is unlikely to be affected by the presence of observers - highly likely ppts behaved naturally while being observed (no demand characteristics) = external validity

carried out longitudinally rather than cross-sectionally (a quicker alternative) - better internal validity bcos do not have confounding variable of individual differences between ppts

just because a child is distressed when an individual leaves the room doesn't necessarily mean the individual = true attachment figure, as pointed put by Bowlby (1969) - Schaffer and Emerson's view of stages does not distinguish between behaviour shown towards secondary attachment figures and towards playmates

• Procedure 
• divided 12 goose eggs, half hatched with the mother goose in their natural environment and the other balf hatched in an incubator, first moving object they saw was Lorenz
• Mixed all goslings together to see whom they would follow
• Lorenz also observed birds and their later courtship behaviour

• Findings
• Incubator group followed Lorenz, control group followed the mother
• Lorenz identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place eg. a few hours after hatching - if imprinting didn't occur in this time chicks didn't attach to a mother figure
• Sexual imprinting also occurs whereby the birds acquire a template of the desirable characteristics required in a mate

Strength: Guiton (1966) chicks who imprinted on yellow washing-up gloves would try to mate with them as adults - supports concept of imprinting

Limitation: mammalian attachment system is different from that in birds - cannot generalise Lorenz'a ideas to humans

• Procedure: reared 16 rhesus monkeys with 2 wire model 'mothers'
• In one condition, milk dispensed by the plain wire mother
• In second condition, milk dispensed by cloth-covered mother
• The monkeys' preferences were measured
• As a further measure of attachment-like behaviour, the monkey's reactions to more frightening situations were observed - also added a noise making bear to the environment
• also continued to study monkeys who had been deprived of their mother since childhood

• Findings: monkeys cuddled the soft object in preference to the wire one, regardless of which dispensed milk - suggests contact comfort more important than food
• The monkey's sought comfort from the cloth mother when frightened 
• As adults, the monkeys deprived of their mother from childhood suffered severe consequences: more aggressive, less sociable, less skilled in mating, neglected and sometimes killed their own offspring

Strength: helped social workers understand risk factors in child abuse and now understand importance of attachment fihures for baby monkeys in breeding programmes and zoos

Limitation: caused suffering to monkeys - ethical issues

• Classical conditioning
• UCS (food) leads to UCR (feeling of pleasure)
• A caregiver (eg. the mother) starts as a NS 
• Caregiver providing the food gradually becomes associated with food - NS becomes the CS
• Once conditioning has taken place the sight of the caregiver produces a CR of pleasure
• According to a learning theorist, this is the basis of attachment love

• Operant conditioning explains why babies cry for comfort
• Positive reinforcement: crying leads to a response from the mother eg. feeding - as long as caregiver provides the correct response, crying is reinforced bcos ir produces a pleasurable consequence
• Negative reinforcement: as the baby is reinforced for crying, the caregiver recieves negative reinforncement bcos they are escaping something unpleasent (crying)
• The interplay of positive/negative reinforcement strengthens the attachment

Hunger = primary drive (innate biological motivator), attachment = secondary drive. Sears et al (1957) - caregivers provide food, therefore primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them

Lorenz's geese maintained attachment regardless of who fed them and Harlow's monkeys attached to a soft surrogate in preference to a wire one with milk - in both attachment didn't develop as a result of feeding - same must be true for humans 

Evidence suggests other factors are more important than food in the formation of attachment - Schaffer and Emerson (1964) showed that for many babies a primary attachment was not to the person who fed them - shows feeding is not the key element of attachment, so there is no UCS or primary drive involved 

The main problem with the learning theory is the idea that feeding provides the UCS, reinforcement and interactional synchrony. However, many aspects of human development are affected by conditioning - seems plausible that it could still play a role in attachment (but not in relation to feeding), eg. comford and interaction

Hay and Vespo (1988) suggest that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviours, eg. hugging them, and also rewarding them with approval when they display their own attachment behaviours - highlights newer learning explanation based on SLT

• Attachment is an innate system that gives a survival advantage
• Imprinting and attachment evolved because they ensure young animals stay close to their caregivers and this protects them from hazards

• Monotropic = a primary attachment figure - emphasis on attachment to one caregiver as this attachment is different and more important than others
• More time spent with primary caregiver is beneficial bcos:
• 1. law of continuity - the more constant a childs care, the better the quality of attachment
• 2. law of accumulated speculation - effects of every separation add up

Babies are born with social releasers (cute behaviours) eg. smiling - encourage attention and therefore activate the adult attachment system - Bowlby recognised attachment is a reciprocal system

Sensitive period of about 2 years - infant attachment system is active - if an attachment has not formed in this time, the child will find it hard to form attachments in later life

Child forms a mental representation, ie. internal working model of relationship with primary caregiver - template of relationships - may affect child's later ability to be a parent themselves

mixed evidence: Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found most babies did attach to one person at first, but a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time - contradicts Bowlby -  babies form one attachment to a primary caregiver and this attachment is unique - attachment with mother predicts later behaviour - may be bcos mother is primary attachment, not different quality

Brazleton et al (1975) instructed primary attachment figures to ignore their babie's social releasers - babies initially showed distress, but eventually some lay motionless - highlights significance of infant soical behaviour eliciting caregiving from adults and the role of releasers in initiating social interaction

Bailey et al (2007) studied 99 mothers; those with poor attachment to their own parents were more likely to have 1 year olds who were poorly attached - supports Bowlby's idea of an internal working model of attachment being passed on through generations

• method to assess the quality of a child's attachment to a caregiver
• controlled observation procedure in a lab with a two-way mirror - psychologists can observe infants behaviour

• Five categories to judge attachment:
• proximity seeking: well attached infants stay close to caregiver
• exploration / secure-base behaviour: good attachment = confidence to explore
• stranger anxiety: displayed by well attached infants
• separation anxiety: displayed by well attached infants
• response to reunion with caregiver after separation - well attached infants = enthusiastic

• Procedure has 7 episodes, each lasting 3 mintes:
• 1. child is encouraged to explore by caregiver
• 2. stranger enters and talks to caregiver
• 3. caregiver leaves
• 4. caregiver returns, stranger leaves
• 5. caregiver leaves the child alone
• 6. stranger returns 
• 7. caregiver returns

Found distinct patterns - Indentified 3 main types of attachment:

• 1. Secure attachment (Type B: 60-75% of British toddlers):
• Child happy to explore but seeks proximity with caregiver (secure base)
• Shows moderate separation anxiety and stranger anxiety
• Requires and accepts comfort from caregiver on reunion

• 2. Insecure-avoidant attachment (Type A: 20-25% of British toddlers):
• Child explores freely but does not seek proximity (no secure base)
• Shows little/no separation and stranger anxiety
• Does not require comfort at the reunion stage

• Insecure-resistant attachment (Type C: 3% of British toddlers):
• Child explores less and seeks greater proximity
• Shows considerable stranger and separation anxiety
• Resists comfort when reunited with caregiver

Different observers watching the same children generally agree on attachment type - Bick et al (2012) found 94% agreement in one team - bcos the ** takes place under controlled conditions and behavioural categories are easy to observe - good inter-rater reliability - can be confident results do not depend on the observer

Cultural differences in children's experiences mean they respond differently, also caregiver's from different cultures behave differently - Takashi et al (1990) notes that Japanese mothers are rarely separated from infants, thus the infants show high levels of separation anxiety - results are culturally bias

Ainsworth assumed that the main influence on separation and stranger anxiety was the quality of attachment - Kagan et al (1982) suggests temperament is a more important influence on behaviour in the ** - challenges the validity of the **, temperament may be a confounding variable

Ainswoth identified 3 attachment types - Main and Solomon (1986) pointed out that some children display atypical attachments that do not fit Ainsworth's types - disorganised attachment - a mix of avoidant and resistant behaviours - challenges whether ** is a useful method to identify attachment types

• looked at proportions of Ainsworth's attachment types across a range of countries
• also looked at differences within same countires - idea of variations within a culture
• found 32 studies of attachment using the ** conducted in 8 countries - 15 in the USA
• overall the studies yielded 1,990 children
• The data was meta-analysed, results being combined and weighted for sample size

• Findings:
• secure attachment was the most common classification in all countries - ranged from 50% in China to 75% in Britain
• insecure-resistant attachment: 
• individualist cultures (USA and Europe) rates were similar to Ainsworth's origional sample - all below 14%
• collectivist cultures (China, Japan and Israel) rates were above 25% 
• insecure-avoidant:
• individualist cultures - 21-35%, similar to Ainsworth
• colldectivist culturs showed low rates of 5-7%, apart from China (25%) like indiviualist cultures
• However, variations between results of studies within the same country were greater than those between countries eg. USA secure attachment found at 46% and 90%

Meta-analysis = large sample - in van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg's meta-analysis there was approx 2000 babies and their primary attachment figures - large samples increase internal validity by reducing the impact of biased methodology or unusual ppts

Made comparisons between countries, not cultures - within any country there are different cultures each with different child rearing practices - van Ijzendoorn and Sagi (2001) found attachment types in urban Tokyo was similar to Western cultures, whereas rural samples represented insecure-resistant attachment types - not representative of cultures, more so countries

The ** was designed by an American researcher (Ainsworth) based on a British theory (Bowlby) - suffers from imposed etic, which disregards cultural emic - theory and assessment not applicable to other cultures, eg. insecure-attachment may be seen as independence in Germany

could also apply ** evaluations, eg. temperament

continued emotional care from the mother is essential for normal emotional and intellectual dev.

• separation = child not being physically in the presence of the primary attachment figure
• deprivation = losing emotional care as a result of separation
• Deprivation can be avoided if alternative emotional care is offered, thus separation doesn't always cause deprivation

Intellectual development

• If a child is separated from their mother without substitute emotional care for too long during the critical period of 30 months they will suffer from an abnormally low IQ
• Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQs in children from institutes compared to fostered children

Emotional development

• lack of emotional care may also lead to affectionless psychopathy - the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion for others. 
• prevents development of normal relationships and is associated with criminality

Bowlby (1944) 44 thieves study

• sample: 44 delinquent teens accused of stealing
• interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy (ie. lack of affection, guilt + empathy)
• families also interviewed to establish any prolonged separations from mothers

Findings

• 14 of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths - 12 of which had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers within first 2 years of their lives
• only 5 of the remaining 30 thieves had experienced separations - suggests prolonged early separation caused affectionless psychopathy

Bowlby carried out the assessments for affectionless psychopathy and family interviews himself, knowing what he hoped to find - produced biased results - however, theory developed years after the study, may have developed his theory from the study

Lewis (1954) partially replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger scale, looking at 500 young people - found early prolonged maternal separation didn't predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships - suggests other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal separation - limitation of Bowlby's theory

Koluchova (1976) case study of Czech twin boys isolated from 18 months (locked in a cupboard), later were looked after by two loving adults - found to recover fully - severe deprivation can have positive outcomes if child has good aftercare - critical period is more a 'sensitive' period

Harlow's monkeys - monkey's who had been deprived of real mother's into adulthood suffered severe consequences, eg. less skilled in mating - shows permanent affect on social developement - supports Bowlby - however, there is always some doubt over the extent to which animal studies can be generalised to human behaviour

1. Disinhibited attachment: the child is equally friendly and affectionate towards people they know well or who are strangers. This may be an adaptation to multiple caregivers

2. Damage to intellectual development: institutionalised children often show signs of mental retardation. This effect is not as pronounced if the children are adopted before 6 months of age.

• tested the extent to which good care can make up for poor early experiences in institutions in a longitudinal study - followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans who experienced very poor conditions before being adopted into Britain
• assessed physical, cognitive and emotional develpment at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15. 
• also followed a control group of 52 adopted British children

Findings 

half of orphans showed mental retardation when they came to the UK - at age of 11 recovery rates were related to their age of adoption:

• adopted before 6 months = mean IQ of 102
• adopted between 6 months and 2 years = mean IQ of 86
• adopted after 2 years = mean IQ of 77

disinhibited attachment (clinginess, attention seeking + indiscriminate affection to strangers) apparent in children adopted after 6 months old - rare in children adopted before this age

Findings support view that there is a sensitive period of 6 months old

Results from romanian orphan studies have led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions (Langton 2006) - childrens home now avoid having large no. of caregivers per child; have 1 or 2 key caregivers who play central role - child given chance to develop normal attachments and avoid disinhibited attachments - practically valuable

Most children in ROS were abandoned at birth - avoids confounding variables of neglect, abuse, bereavement etc (ie. trauma) - increases internal validity of the studies

conditons of romanian orphanages have such poor standards of care (especially when it came to forming any relationship with children) results may not be applicable to insititutional care or general situations of deprivation - may lack generalisability

Too soon to say whether children suffered short or long term effects - orphans only have been followed into mid-teens - those who were adopted later in life may still 'catch up' on development in adulthood - vice versa, children adopted early with no issues may experience emotional probelms as an adult

Internal working model - first attachment iscrucial bcos it is a template for future relationships - due to internal working model created by that first attachment

good experience of attachment = good relationship expectations bcos assume thats how all relationships are meant to be - seek out functional relationships and behave functionally within them

bad experience of attachment = bad relationship expectations - struggle to form relationships and do not behave appropriately in them

Securely attached infants go on to form the best quality childhood friendships (Kerns 1994) - also less likely to be involved in bullying, whereas insecure-avoidant are most likely to be victims and insecure-resistant are most likely to be bullys (Myron-Wilson and Smith 1998)

People base their parenting style on their internal working model so attachment types tend to be passed on through generations of a family

Hazan and Shaver (1987) Romantic relationships

researchers analysed 620 replies to a 'love quiz' printed on an American local newspaper

quiz assessed 3 different aspects of relationships:

• 1. respondents' current and most important relationship
• 2. general love experiences
• 3. attachment type

Findings

• 56% securely attached, 25% insecure-avoidant, 19% insecure-resistant

attachment type was reflected in their romantic relationships:

• secure respondents - most likely to have good and longer-lasting romantic relationships
• avoidant respondents - tended to be jealous and fear intimacy

internal working models predict that attachment type is passed on through generations - Zimmerman (2000) assessed infant attachment type and adolescent attachments to parents - found little relationship between quality of infant and adolescent attachment - dimishes importance of internal working models role in development

influence of infant attachment on future relationships is exaggerated (Clarke and Clarke 1998) - just suffer from greater risk; not certain that bad attachment leads to bad future relationships - over-emphasising this risk we become too pessimistic about people's futurs

internal working models are unconscious - not directly aware of their influence - self-report relies on conscious understanding of relationships - limitation of most research involving IWM