Attachment

• babies have periodic 'alert phases' & signal when they are redy for interactions , which mothers respond to two-thirds of the time (feldman and Eidleman 2007)

• interational sychrony - Meltzof and Moore (1977)  - sychrony begins at around 2 weeks old - adults displayed one of three distinctive gestures

• high sychrony = higher quality attachment - provides nessesary foundation for connection - Isabella et al (1989) observed 20 mum and infants & degree of sychrony & quality of attachement 

• reciprocy = responds - around 3 months reciprocal interactions becomes frequent - play close attention to verbal signals and facial expressions - Brazleton et al (1975) - "like a dance" - each partner responds

• baby takes active role - can initiate interations - takes turns in doing so 

pros:

• well-controlled procedures - ussually filmed from different angles & analysed later - babies dont know they are being observed (demand characteristics) - good validity
• potential value to society - inportant foundation in fomration of high-quality attachment will benefit society - Crotwell et al (2003) found 10 minute parent-child inetraction therapy (PCIT) improved synchrony in 20 low-income mothers and their infants compared to control group 

cons:

• hard to know what is happening - same patterns of behviour (Gratier 2003) - dont knwo infants perspective - imitation of adult = consious and deliberate 
• observations dont tell us purpose - Feldman (2012) synchrony simply describe behviours at the same time - not useful - other evidence shows that synchrony helpful developing attchement, stress responses, empathy, language and moral development
• socially sensitive - suggests some children maybe be at disadvantage (if mothers go to work too soon) - socially sensitive issue

• Schaffer and Emerson (1964) - 3% of cases saw father as primary attachment - 27% cases saw father as joint primary - in 75% of infants studied an attachment with father formed by 18 months (infants protested when dad walked away

• Grossman (2002) - lognitudinal study - qualitiy of attachment with mum = more inportant when looking at teen attachment - fathers less important in long-term emotional development

• dads = more to do with play and stimulation - high quality play = high quality attachment 

• Field (1978) - filmed 4-month olf babies with dad primary care-givers & saw they showed same qualities as mothers (imitating...) 

• level of response  = key to attachment - not gender 

cons:

• resarchers interested in different things - dad as primary / dad as secondary

• evidence undermindes idea that fathers have distinct role - Grossman (2002) - Dad = play & stimulation - McCallum and Golombok (2004) - same sex parent's children dont develop differntly 

• fails to provide clear answer  - could be due to traditional roles or to do with female hormones (oestrogen) that cause higher levels of nurturing - biologically predisposed

• social biasses can cause researcher bias - sterotypes are looked for by researcher (researcher bias)

• important economical implications - mums feel pressure to stay home (childs emotional development) - some families mum not going back to work would not be economically the best solution - can be comfort to mums who dont want to go back 

• Asocial stage (first few weeks) - behavior towards objects and humans = same - some preferance to familiar adults - no stanger anxiety or seperation anxiety - same behviour towards all

• indiscriminate attatchment (around 7 months) - has stanger anxiety and speration anxiety from particular adult -  formed a primary attachment to 1 individual, ussually one that most interacts and is responsive to baby (biological mum 65% of cases)

• multiple attachments (by 1 year) - secondary attachments form with other adults, 29% babies had secondary within months of forming primary 

• 60 glasgow babies from mainly working class families - visited every month & at 18 months - speration & stanger anxiety measured by asking mum  - 50% showed speration anxiety toward particular adult 25-32 weeks of age - most interactive & reciprocol = primary not person who spends most time

Pros:

• external validity - partents reported their observations to researchers - baby behviour less likly to be affected by pressence of observer - they behaved naturally 
• longitudinal study - quicker would have been cross-sectional study ( observe different children at each age) - but longitudinal have better internal validity due to no confounding variables (participant variables) 

cons:

• problem with how multiple attachments are assesed - just because baby is upset when someone leave room - does not necessarily mean idividual is 'true' attachment figure - Bowlby (1969) = children may be distressed when play mate leaves room - stages does not fit with secondary attachment
• studying asocial area - first few weeks baby is immobile & poor at communicating - may be social inside but cant show it in obseravtions
• timing of multiple attachments is conflicting - Bowlby (1969) -baby form attachment to primary then secondary - but collectivist cultures show baby can from multiple attachments from the begining (van Ijzendoorn 1993)

Lorenz (1952) imprinting:

• 12 goose eggs randomly divided - 6 natural with mum - 6 incubator with Lorenz
• mix gosling up - Lorenz 6 follow him - control follow mum
• Lorenz identified critical period for imprinting (few hours) 
• sexual imprinting - aquire template for ideal mate

Harlow (1958) contact comfort:

• 16 rhesus monkeys with 2 wire mums - 1 with food - 1 with cloth - monkeys preferance measured & reactions observed in scary situation - contiued into adulthood
• baby monkeys cuddled cloth mum regardless of which dispensed milk - contact over food 
• when fightened baby monkey goes to cloth mum
• deprived of mum - adult monkey = more agressive, less sociable, less skilled in mating - neglected their young & sometimes killed them

Lorenz :

• pro - Guiton (1966) found chicks imprint on yellow glove & try mate with it - born with innate mechanism & critical window of development
• cons - cant generalise mamals and birds attachment systems - mamals more emotional to young 
• cons - obseravtions have been questioned - Guiton (1966)  found that with experience birds would learn to mate with own kind - effects of imprinting not as long lasting 

Harlow:

• pro - important partactical value - helps social workers understand risk factors in child abuse & inetrvene to prevent it (Howe 1998) & importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding programs
• cons - unethical - human-like suffering - Harlow called wire mum "iron madien" named after medieval tourture device - but research was important enough to justify monkeys suffering
• generalising human-monkey attachment, better but not exactly realistic - human baby can talk (babble) changing formation of attachments 

Dollar and Miller (1950):

• food = motivation - children learn to love whoever feeds them

• classical conditioning - UCS (food) leads to UCR (feeling of pleasure) - NS (mum) becomes assosicated with UCS (food) - NS becomes CS - sight of caregiver produces CR (pleasure) - basis of attachment love 

• operant conditioning - explains why babies cry for comfort leads to response from the caregiver (eg feeding), correct response means crying is reinforced as it produces a pleasureable consequence

• negative reinforcement - baby reinforced crying, caregiver recieves negative reinforcement as crying stops - positve & negative renforcement strengthen attachment 

• drive reduction - hunger is primitive drive - innate bilogical motivator - attachment is a secondary drive learned by assoisation between caregiver and satisfaction of primary drive  - Sears et al (1957) suggested caregivers provide food , the primary drive of hunger gets generalised to them

Pros:

• some elemements of conditioning could still be involved - human development is affected by conditioning so could play role in attachment - assosiations between caregiver and social interactions may work
• newer learning explanation based on Social learning theory - Hay and Vespo (1988) suggest parents geach child how to love by modelling attachment behviours (cuddling) & reward them when they show attachment behaviours ("thats a lovely smile") - importance of interactional synchrony and reciprocity

cons:

• animal study is again food as motivator - harlow monkeys
• feeding not inportant - Shaffer and Emmerson (1964)  showed baby primary attachment not always who feeds them
• ignores other factors - interactional synchrony and reciprocity  

• attachment is an innate process with survival evolutionary value - staying close to mum protects from preditors
• monotropic - emphasis on the one primary attachment
• more time baby spends with primary caregiver the better - Law of Continuity (more constant the care the stronger the attachement) - Law of Accumilated Seperation (effects of seperation add up "safest dose is no dose"
• social releasers (inate)- encorages attention from adults - activates the adult attachment system - reciprocal process
• critical period of about 2 years, (more sensitive period), if atachment not formed by this point, its difficult to form in later life
• first attachment form internal working model for future relationships - acts as a template - affects your ability to be a parent 

Pros:

• clear evidence for social releasers - Brazleton et al (1975) - blank face causes baby distress and curled up and lay motionless - significance of infant social behaviour - iniciates social interactions 
• support for internal working model - suggest that attachment will be passed from one generation to the next - Bailey et al (2007) 99 mums with pooor attachment to own parents were more likely to have 1 year old who is poorly attached

Cons:

• evidence for monotrophy is mixed - Schaffer and Emerson (1964) - most babies did attach to one person first but a significant minority formed multiple attachments at same time 
• socially sencitive due to impact on mums lifestyle - law of accumilated seperation puts pressure on mum to stay home - Burman 1994 (feminist) said mums blamed for childs failings & pushes mum into making lifestyle choices (returning to work) - not what Bowlby intended - thought he was boosting mums showing how inportant they are
• childs temerment plays a part in development of social behaviour - Baby more anxious & some more social due to genetics (Kagan 1982) - explain later social behaviour

• to assess quality of attachment  - controlled observation in lab
• 5 catagories - proximity seeking (secure = stay close) - exploration and strong base (shild confident to explore but use caregiver as safe point) - stranger anxiety - seperation anxiety - response to reunion (secure = enthusiastic)

3 main types of attachment:

• secure (type B) - 60-75% GB todlers - happy to explore but seek proximity, moderate seperation anxiety & stranger anxiety - requires and accepts comfort on reunion
• insecure-avoidant (type A) 20-25% GB todlers - feely explores, not seek proximity, little/no seperation anxiety, not require comfort on reunion
• insecure-resistant (type C) - 3% GB todlers - explore less, seeks greater proximity, considerable stranger and seperation anxiety - resists comfort when reunited. 

procedure - 7 episodes - 1) child encoraged to play by mum, 2) stranger enters and talks to mum, 3) mum leaves, 4) mum returns, stanger leaves, 5) mum leaves, 6) stranger returns, 7) mum returns

pros:

• predictive validity of attachment types - secure baby = successful at school & more lasting romantic relationships - insecure have worst outcomes, like bullying (Kokkinos 2007) and adult mental health problems (Ward et al 2006) 
• good inter-rater reliability - different observeres agree on childs attachment type - 94% in one team (Bick et al 2012) - attachment type does not depend on who is observing

Cons:

• may be culture bound test - different cultures may respond differently - Takahashi (1990) noted japanese mums rarely seperated form child s high seperation anxiety levels
• temerment maybe confounding variable - Kagan (1982) suggests temperment more inportant
• may be other attchment types - Main and Solomon (1986) found a disorganised attachment (one that does not fit in the 3 identified by Ainsworth but a mixture)

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) meta analysis:

• attachment type proportions vary across countries 
• compared 32 studies of strange situation in 8 countries, 15 from USA, results from 1,990 children 
• secure attachment was most popular across countries but was variet - 50% in China, 75% GB
• individualist cultures rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to original ** (14%)
• collectivist samples from China, Japan & Israel  rates were 25% (ISR) & rates of ISA were also lower 
• studies within same country were 150% greater difference than country vs country - USA saw two studies found 46% secure compared to 90% secure

simonelli et al (2014) italian study:

• assesed 76 12-month olds using ** to see if types matched perivious studies in Italy - variety of mums (based on job and education) - found 50% were secure, 36% insecure-avoidant - lower secure rates than in perivious studies - maybe due to mums working longer hours and using professional childcare

pros:

• meta-anaysis has big sample (in Van's there was nearly 2000 babies) - increase internal valdity

cons:

• samples may not be representative of cultures - comparisions between countries not cultures - Ijzenoorn and Sagi (2001) found urban Tokyo had similar results to western society but rural tokyo  had more ISR
• ** may be bias to western cultures - designed by american using british theory - not applicable to other cultures - to apply one culture test to another = imposed etic -  which disregards notion of cultural emic (cultural uniqueness) - Germany may see lack of pleasure at reunion as positive as child is independent 
• alternative explanation for similarities - attachment is innate & universal so produces same kind of behviours - coudle be similar due to mass media (TV & Books) encoraging similar parenting styles
• counfounding variables - childs temerment (Kagan 1982) 'more inportant' 

• continueous emotional (maternal) care from mum or substitute is nesessary for normal emotional and itellectual development - seperation from mum may lead to maternal deprivation - "mother-love in infancy is as inportant for mental health as vitamins and protiens are for physical health"
• seperation = primary caregiver not being there - Deprivation = losing emotional care as a result of the seperation - can be avoided if aletranative emotional support is offered
• critical period is 30 months for emotional support - if none in first 30 months then psychological damage in inevitable - suffer mental retardation and abnormaly low IQ - Goldfarb (1947) found intutionalised kids had lower IQs than fostered
• lack of emotional care can cause affectionless psycopathy - prevents person developing normal realtionships and is assosiated with criminality 

Bowlby (1944) 44 theives:

• 44 teenager theives - families interviewed to establish times of prolonged seperation - all 44 were interviewed for signs of affectionless psycho (lack of guilt & empathy) - 14/44 were AP - 12 of the 14 experienced prolonged seperation in first 2 years of life - only 5 of the remaining 30 were sperated for prolonged time - supporting Bowlbys ideas

Pros:

• animal studies support - Levey et al (2003) seperating baby rats from mum for as little as a day had permemnat effect on social development - can be generalised to humans . .

Cons:

• sources of evidence are flawed - Golfarb had war orphans (other trauma from war caused issues not seperation) - Bowbly carried out 44 interviews himself for AP - reasearcher bias
• counter evidence - Lewis (1954) replicated 44 theives but with 500 young people - early prolonged maternal seperation did not predict criminality - other factors
• critical period more like sensitive period - Koluchova's (1976) case study of Czech twins boys isolated from age 18 months locked in cupboard - fully recovered after being looked after by two loving adults
• Bowlby did not distiguish between privation and deprivation - Rutter (1981) distinguish between the 2 - long term damge Bowlby fpund more likly to do with privation than deprivation - theives had moved from home to home in childhood, so many never formed attachments in first place causing AP

effects of institutionalisation:

• disinhibited attachment - equally friendly to stangers and people they know  - adaption to multiple caregivers
• damage to intellectual developemnt - signs of mental retardation - effects not as profound if adopted before 6 months 

Rutter et al - English Romanian adoptee study (2011):

• 165 orphans - logitudinal study - assesed at 4,6,11 & 15 - control goup of 52 GB adopted kid 
• half orphans showed mental retarnation - age 11 recovery rates were related to age of adoption - adopted before 6 months = mean IQ 102 - adopted between six months and two years = mean IQ 86 - adopted after 2 years = mean IQ 77
• frequency of disinhibited attachment relatyed to age of adoption - child after 6 months = clingy, attention-seeking & indiscriminate affection to stangers -- rare in children adopted before 6 months - support view there is sensitive period - long lastings effect is no attachment before age of 6 months 

Pros:

• important practical appliactions - improvements in children instiutions (Langton 2006) - avoid large numbers of caregivers and have 1 or 2 key careworkers - child can form normal attachments - avoid disinhibited attachments
• fewer confounding variables - no war trauma - they were abandoned at birth - increased internal validity

cons:

• issues with generalisability - conditions in orphanages in romania worse than GB - unusual situational variables mean studies lack generalisability 
• children not randomly asigned - so sociable ones may been adopted first (confounding variables) - randomly asigned has ethical issues 
• long-term effects of early experiences are not yet clear - they may intellectually actch up as adults - children adopted early who had no emotional problmes may get problems as adults

internal working model:

• first attachment is a template for future relationships 
• good experience of attachment = good relationship expectations - seek out functional realtionships and behave functionally with them
• secure infacts form better firendships and less likly to be bullied or be involved (Kerns 1994) - ISA most likly to be victems- ISR most likly to do the bullying (Myron-Wilson and Smith 1998)
• internal working model affect parenting - passed through generations of a family 

Hazan and Shaver (1987) Love Quiz:

• 620 replies from local newspaper - 3 aspects: current/ most recent relationship, general love experience, attachment type
• 56% = securely attached - 25% = insecure-avoidant - 19% insecure-resistant
• secure have good and longer realtionships, avoidants have jelous and fear intimacy

Cons:

• evdience is mixed - Zimmermap (2000) suggested there was little relation between quality of infant and adult realtionships - not what we expect if IWM is correct
• issues with validity - most research does not use ** but interviews (limited validity) are they being honest? relies on accurate recall
• indicate associations not same as causation - childs temerment may influence infant & adult relationships - goes against IWM
• influence of attachment is exagerated - Clarke and Clarke (1998) descibed influence of infant attchment on later relationships as problamatic - not doomed to alway have bad realtionship just greater risk of problems - over emphasising this risk
• theoretical problem with research relating to internal working model - unconcious models so cant be mesured apart from self reporting- but this requires concious understanding - indirect evidence about IWM