Attachment

An intense emotional, relationtionship which endures overtime, and in which prolonged seperation from the attatchment is accompanied by stress and sorrow. This is mutual or reciprocal.

Infant developed = have stranger anxiety, and seperation protest

Caregiver - Infant Interactions

• Bodily Contact: Physical interactions between the infant and carer
• Interactional Synchrony: Move their bodies in tune with the carers spoken language
• Mimicking: Imitate carer's facial expressions
• Caregiverese: Modified form of language, slow, repetitive and song like
• Reciprocity: Interactions between infant and carer result in mutual behaviour

Evaluations

• Condon and Sander - Video recordings = supports interactional synchrony
• Klaus and Kennel - Cuddles = supports bodily contact
• Levine - Kenyan mothers = Bodily contact not needed
• Caregiverese - all adults

Pre attachment phase (birth to 3 months): infants become attracted to other humans, prefering them to objects and events, demonstrated by smiling at people's faces.

Indiscriminate attachment phase (6 weeks to 7 months): discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar people, smiling more at known people, still allowing strangers to handle them.

Discriminate attachment phase (7 to 11 months): Develop specific attachments, staying close to particular people, and being distressed when apart, avoid unfamiliar people and protest when they are handled.

Multiple attachment phase (9 months +): Infants form strong emotional ties with other major caregivers, like grandparents, and non caregivers, like other children. The fear of strangers weakens, but attachment to the mother remains the strongest.

Research: Shaffer and Emerson (1964) - Longitudinal Study, Glasgow, 60 new born babies in a working class area. Observations of babies and interviews with the mother every month from birth to 1 year, with a follow up visit at 18 months. Attachment was measured through seperation protest (infant alone), and stronger anxiety (of the researcher).

Findings from Schaffer and Emerson Study

• Seperation protest: 6-8 months
• Stronger anxiety: 7-9 months
• 18 months: 87% had multiple attachments

There is a pattern of attachment in all children suggesting a bilogical component, therefore multiple attachments is the norm.

Observational reseach - researcher bias, not understanding the attachment bond

Some large individual differences - not just a biological component

Interviews with mothers - bias, socially desirable

High validity - it's in people's homes, so relates to everyday life

Carpenter - 2 week old babies looked at mothers faces for the longest when speaking, contradicting Schaffer and Emerson who say they initially interact with everyone.

Not important = Primary attachment to Mother is the most important

• Bowlby, mother and child's bond is the only important bond, mothers inherit a genetic blueprint (allows them the care for children), and introduced the idea of monotropy (best chance of survival if they attach to one person).
• Only 10% males are the primary caregiver (National Standards)
• Lamb, fathers are good play mates, children prefered mothers when seeking comfort and are distressed

Important = Attachment to the Father is just as important

• Paquette, fathers more involved in play, which encourgaes them to take risks, and be brave, encouraging independence and development
• Verissimo, the strength of the relationship between the father, correlated between the number of friends they had at pre school.
• Frank, where Father's are the primary caregiver, both parents share the role of the primary attachment figure

Lorenz (1935)

• Investigate imprinting (follow the first large object they meet)
• Large number of goose eggs and divided them into 2 groups, half hatched by the mother (saw mother first), half in an incubator (saw lorenz first)
• Then placed them in an upturned box, see who they followed when the box was removed
• Found those hatched naturally = followed mother, others followed Lorenz
• Same thing when rrelaeased from upturned box, only after 4-25 hours after hatching.

Animal Study - little about human attachment, humans differ from animals, more complex thought as emotions, so can't necessarily be generalised to infant behaviour, however studies like this allow us to get a basic understanding of attachment as it is unethical to remove infants from their mothers.

Guiton (contradicting research) - imprint chicks onto rubber gloves, and could reverse the imprinting, so it's not necessarily as biological determined

Furthered our undestanding - as imprinting lead to Bowlby considering critical periods, therefore the study has clear implications for human development.  

Harlow (1959): Attachment bond was based on food

• Seperated 8 new born monkeys from their mothers at birth, and reared them in cages of isolation, untill 8 months old
• 2 surrogate mothers, 1 made of wire with a monkey face, the other with a wooden block covered in a soft cloth. For half the feeding bottle was on the wire monkey, half on the soft cloth surrogate, and harlow observed how long each monkey spent with two different mothers, and who they clung onto when scared by the mechanical bear.
• All spent most of their time with the soft cloth monkey, only clung on wire monkey for food, went back to the cloth monkey after and when frightened they all went to the cloth monkey.

Unethical - seperating monkeys from their mothers, against BPS guidelines, also as it damages the credibility of all research in this subject, leading to psychologists to be distrusted

Can't generalise - 99% of human and chimps DNA is the same, human brain is 3x biggger, however this study couldn't have been done on humans so it lets us investigate the effects

Confounding variables - The monkey's differed in more than just cloth, their heads were also different

These theories both state we attach to whoever feeds us (cupboard love)

Classical Conditioning (learning through association): Attach to who gives us food, as we associate them with the pleasure that food gives us, so if Mum is always present when food is given, then Mum is associated with food, therefore pleasure.

Operant (learning through trial and error): Suggests that a baby cries when it feels hungry, so it learns when it cries, Mum gives it food and makes it feel better. So it learns that everytime it cries Mum comes along making it feel more comfortable, reinforcing the behaviour of calling and waiting for Mum.

Scientific research - lots of support, reliable

Reductionist - reducing complex emotions down to a simple stimulus response explanation

Harlow's research, Monkeys - contradict (comfort over food)

Animals - Can't generalise, more complex thoughts and emotions

Drive reduction theory - reducing discomfort, doesn't explain thing such as bungee jumping

• This theory suggests we attach to our mothers for reasons of survival - if we didn't form attachments with our babies and care for them our species would die out as they wouldn't be able to survive
• Babies are 'genetically programmed' to encourage care taking behaviour, engaging in behaviours called 'social releasers'- behaviours such as crying (can't be ignored), gazing into mothers eyes, smiling at their caregiver and babbling and gurgling (communicaion), forcing a response from the Mother
• Mother inhertits the genetic blueprint, programming her to respond to babies attachment behaviours - doesn't have to be her biological child, as they need adequate mothering more.
• Babies display Monotropy - strong innate tendecy to become attached to one particular female, first to develop and the strongest of them all, ensuring the best chance of survival for themselves with one person taking responsibility for them.

Bowlby said this needed to take place in the critical period (3-6 months) else it would never occur. Because of this attachment the baby forms and internal working model, a mental representation of the relationship, allowing the child to; understand their caregivers behaviour (enhancing the bond), and form a template about how future relationships should be, generating expectations about what close, loving relationships are like.

Evalutation of Bowlby's Evolutionary Theory

Stern (1977) - babies have a pre-disposition to look into the caregivers eyes, supports that they display social releasing behaviours

Tronick et al (1992) - African group, infants looked after and breast fed by several different women, but sleep with their own mother at night, shows infants still have one primarty attachment

Rutter (1981) - Range of attachment behaviours towards various attachment figures as well as their mothers, contradicting monotropy.

Research suggested that some children form attachments after the critical period, suggesting its a sensitive period not a critical.

Kagan - suggested a strong attachment has more to do with an infants innate personality, suggesting its not just about survival alone

Infants between 12 - 18 months, observed through cameras in a purpose built playroom. Room contained 2 comfortable chairs, a play area and toys. A clear procedure where the babies were exposed to increasingly stressful situations.

1) Mother and baby were introduced to the strange room

2) Then, a stranger enters the room and talks to the Mother (trying to interact with the baby)

3) Next, tthe child is left with the stranger and its Mother leaves

4) After the Mother returns, the stranger leaves, and then the Mother again (leaving the baby alone in the room)

From the study, classify children in 3 ways;

• Type A: Insecure Avoidant (15%)
• Type B: Secure (70%)
• Type C: Insecure Ambivalent (15%)

• Willingness to explore with the Mother present:
  • Type A - Willing, regardless of the Mother's presence. 
  • Type B - Only play when Mum was present
  • Type C - Fussy/Clingey and unwilling to explore/play
• Child's reaction to seperation of the Mother:
  • Type A - Very mild distress
  • Type B - Some distress, but settle quickly
  • Type C - Very distressed
• Child's reaction to being reunited with the Mother:
  • Type A - Do not seek comfort on Mothers return
  • Type B - Show joy on return
  • Type C - Angry, and resisted Mothers attempts to comfort them
• Child's reaction to the stranger:
  • Type A - Were indifferent to the stranger
  • Type B - Didn't allow stranger to comfort them
  • Type C - Reject the stranger

Reliable - Used in many studies worldwide and similar results have been found. It's easy to replicate because it has a clear procedure, making it a strong experiment.

Practical Applications - it can help insecure children, as insecurely attached infants can be identified and parents can be taught ways for a more secure attachment.

Lacks Validity - 1) ecological, as it's in a strange and unfamiliar nature to them, and not the child's home where they may have acted differently under more realistic circumstances (nursery). Also the departure of the Mother leaving in a strange place to them would have likely caused psychological distress.

2) Not cuturally applied, as Japanese children who are rarelt left alone become distressed when their mum leaves, so may be classified as distressed but their behaviour is due to their child rearing practices, rather than attachment type. 

Ethical issues - Mother leaving in a strange place could make a child become very distressed, and be unhealthy for them. 

Van Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1999) - Cultural differences in attachment, conducting a Meta Analysis of 32 studies of attachment, in 8 different countries, 2000 babies

• Found; More studies on the USA, with more mother infant pairs, least amount China
• Highest Type A - Germany, Lowest - Japan
• Highest Type B - Britain/ Sweden, Lowest - China (most common)
• Highest Type C - Israel, Lowest - Britain

Individualistic rather than collectivist cultures - individual's rather than group needs, problem as the type of culture will effect how a child is classified

Most studies in USA - difficult to draw conclusions as USA is dominant in the sample

Japanesse - experience less seperation (sleep with parents until 2), more stressful for them due to their experiences

Goldberg - We can only make valid interpretations of the strange situation if we underestand the child rearing practices, within that culture, as the differences could have been due to different practices, so it's an unreliable tool.

Bowlby stated that prolonged emotional deprivation (loss of a caregiver), has long term negative consequences in terms of emotional development. Suggesting it's not enough to make sure a child's physical needs are met, it's essential for children to have a warm, intimate, continuous relationship. He believed that if a child deprived of such care in the critical period of development, this lead to being; Emotionally Disturbed = Anxiety, Affectionless (no emotion) Psychopathy (no conscience = criminal), Reduced intellectual ability = struggle at school, not smart.

Research (Bowlby) - 44 Juvenile thieves, control group of 44 emotionally disturbed, who hadn't stole,17 thieves = frequent seperation from their mothers before 2 years old, 14 thieves = diagnosed affectionless psychopaths (where 12 had experienced seperation from their mothers).

Theory has benefited lots of children - practical applications, hospital visiting policies

Bifulco - women who's mothers had died in childhood (or 12 months seperation) = 25% anxiety issues, compared to 15% in control group = showing long term negative effects. 

Barret - reviewed lots of studies on seperation and found that children with secure attachments began to cope well, so not all children experience long term effects. 

Rutter (2010): Assess whether loving and nurturing care could overcome the effect of privation in Romanian Oprhanages following adoption in Britain. This was a longitudinal study with 111 in 4 groups - (1) Children adopted before the age of 6 months, (2) Children adopted 6 months - 2 years, (3) Children adopted after 2. Then assessed the children's level of cognitive functioning and their physical development, compated to a control group of British children, an on going study = age 4, 6, 11 and 16

Found - initial assessent = 50% Romanian - retarded in cognitive functioning and underweight. At 4 months = all children adopted before 6 months had caught up to British children. After more follow ups = a lot after 6 months showed cognitive deficits, struggled in peer relationships and less likely to have one attachment figure. Suggesting, when adopted before 6 months can overcome effects of institutionalisation.

Longitudinal Study - follow up and see their development, high validity it's due to effects, however it's correlational - other factors could have a long term effect (malnutrition, physical conditions)

Data on until age 11 - children may develop normally, just take longer

Beneficial applications - changed adoption policies all over the world 

Continuity Hypothesis: Characteristics that we have in our infant attachment stay with us into childhood and adulthood and influence our later relationships

Internal Working Model: Where an infant's primary attachment forms a model/ template for all future relationships

Peers: Lyons- Ruth et al

• Test continuity hypothesis
• A longitudinal study, comparing infant attachment type at 18 months, with attachment to peers at age 5.
• Found insecure type D children (disorganised) = struggle to make friends with their peers
• Suggested early attachment type influences our peer relationships
• Type B = Make friends the easiest
• Type C = Resistant
• Type A = Avoidant

Adults: Hazan and Shaver

• See if love is directly related to childhood attachment type by asking participants to complete a love quiz to assess their behaviour and attachment in romantic relationships
• Correlated with the results of a questionnaire about childhood attachment
• Found, type B = long lasting relationships, A = no need for love, C = fell in love easily but didn't find true love. Suggesting our infant attachment effects out adult relationships

Longitudinal Study (Lyons-Ruth) - compares children at 18 months and age 5, valid method as we can confirm their attachment at both ages.

McCarthy - Women's attachment in childhood, and found the same results as Hazon and Shaver, supporting the continuity hypothesis

Relies on people's memories - In Hazan and Shaver's study to rememeber their attachment type, which could be vague and inaccurate, can't be sure on the link

Zimmerman - Longitudinal Study in German, comparing children in infancy to 16 years, finding attachment type doesn't indicate attachments in adolescence (no continuity)