Attachment

An attachment is a close two-way emotional bond in which each sees the other as essential for their emotional security

Interactional synchrony - mother and infant mirroring each others emotions, facial expressions or gestures

Reciprocity - mother and infant watch each others facial expression/gestures and respond, and each elicits a response from the other

Baby is active - Not passive role recieving care from adult, both mother and infant initiate interactions

P = Hard to know what's happening when observing infants

E = Many studies show the same behaviour patterns but only hand movements or expressions being observed

E = Hard to know what's taking place from infants perspective eg. are imitations concious

L = Cannot be certain behaviours in mother-infant interaction have special meaning

P = Uses well controlled procedures

E = Interactions filmed from multiple angles so fine details recorded and analysed

E = Babies don't know they're being observed so no demand characteristics

L = High validity

P = Don't tell purpose of synchrony and reciprocity

E = Feldman says synchrony only describes behaviours that happen at the same time

E = Although observations are reliable doesn't tell us their purpose

L = Cannot be sure they have special meaning

Schaffer and Emerson found that primary attachment was to mother most of the time - 3% of time it was only father, 27% joint attachment

75% formed attachment to father by 18 mths

Grossman found quality of attachment to fathers less important for attachment type in teenagers than with mother - father less important in long term emotional development

Quality of father's play more important in attachment 

Field found primary caregiver fathers took on role like mothers - imitating and holding infants more than secondary caregiver fathers

Key to attachment is level of responsiveness to baby not gender of parent

P = Researchers interested in different research questions

E = Some concerned with role of fathers as secondary attachment figure, some with father as primary attachment figure

E = Former see fathers behaving differently to mothers, latter see fathers taking on 'maternal' role

L = Not easy to answer question: what is the role of the father?

P = Undermines idea of fathers having distinct roles

E = Grossman found secondary attachment figure fathers had important/distinct role in development through play and stimulation

E = Other studies found growing up in single or same sex parent families doesn't effect development

L = Fathers role as a secondary attachment figure may have no importance

P = Research fails to provide clear answer about fathers and primary attachments

E = Answer could be related to gender roles i.e. women more nurturing than men

E = Female hormones could create more nurturing behaviour so biological disposition to role

L = Fathers do not have the ability or desire to nurture

Asocial stage: behaviour similar to human and non-human objects, preference for familiar adults

Indiscriminate: preference for humans particularly familiar ones, no stranger/separation anxiety

Specific: stranger/separation anxiety when separated from primary attachment figure

Multiple: secondary attachment form with familiar adults

Study (Schaffer & Emerson):

60 babies from working class families, homes visited every month for year and at 18 mths

Separation/stranger anxiety measured by asking mother about behaviour

50% showed separation anxiety towards specific adult

Attachment towards most reponsive and sensitive adult to babies gestures and expressions

P = High external validity

E = Most observations made by parents during ordinary activities

E = Behaviour unaffected by observers

L = Findings generalisable to everyday situations

P = Longitudinal study

E = Same children followed up instead of observing different children at each age

E = No confounding variables of different temperaments or other participant variables

L = High internal validity

P = Problem assessing multiple attachments

E = Just because baby gets upset when someone leaves does not mean they are true attachment figure

E = Bowlby found children may be distressed when playmate leaves but attachment has not formed

L = Does not distinguish between secondary attachments and temporary playmates

Lorenz - imprinting 

Split 12 goose eggs in half - half with mother, half with human.  Goslings eventually mixed to see who they would follow.  Courtship behaviour observed later

Human group only followed Lorenz, others only followed mother.  Critical period = few hours afters hatching, sexual imprinting - mate based on initial imprinting

Harlow - contact comfort

Rhesus monkeys had two wire mothers - one plain wire, one cloth covered, two conditions where each dispensed milk.  Monkeys adulthood behaviour assessed

Baby monkeys cuddled cloth mother regardless of which dispensed milk.  Contact comfort more important.  

As adults deprived monkeys were more aggressive, less sociable and less skilled at mating.  Neglected or killed own offspring

P = Support for concept of imprinting

E = Guiton found that chicks imprinted on yellow washing up gloves tried to mate with them

E = Young animals born with innate mechanism to imprint on moving object in critical period

L = Imprinting is a inbuilt survival instinct 

P = Important practical applications

E = Harlows research helped social workers understand risk factors in child abuse to prevent it

E = Now understand importance of attachment figures for breeding programmes in zoos

L = Valuable and useful research

P = Limited generalisability

E = Although monkeys are more similar to us than geese still big differences

E = Human babies have speech like communication which may be important 

L = Hard to generalise findings to humans

Classical conditioning

UCS (food) leads to UCR (pleasure).  NS (mother) causes no response.  Mother provides food so is associated with it.  Also becomes associated with pleasure.  Soon mother is CS and pleasure is CR.  This is the basis for attachment love.

Operant conditioning

Babies crying leads to response from caregiver so behaviour is reinforced as it has a pleasurable consequence.  Also, caregiver recieves negative reinforcement as they respond to stop unpleasant situation.  This strengthens attachments.

Drive reduction

Hunger is primary drive - innate biological motivator

Attachment is secondary drive - association between caregiver and satisfaction of primary drive - Sears et al.: drive generalised

P = Animal studies provide counter evidence

E = Lorenz's geese maintained imprinting regardless of who fed them.  Harlow's monkeys attached for comfort

E = Attachment did not develop as a result of feeding

L = Same for humans - food has no role in forming attachments

P = Human research provides counter evidence

E = Schaffer and Emerson showed attachment was not to who fed them most

E = Feeding not key element - no primary drive or conditioning

L = Other more important factors

P = Ignores other factors

E = Quality of attachment associated with reciprocity and interactional synchrony

E = Best quality attachments are sensitive carers who respond correctly

L = Hard to reconcile findings if attachment is food based

Innate - evolved to attach as a survival instinct so stay close to caregiver to avoid hazards

Monotropic - emphasis on attachment to one caregiver - primary attachment more important than others

Reduce separation - law of continuity: more constant care = better attachment, law of accumulated separation: effects of every separation add up - zero dose best

Social releasers - innate cute behaviours to activate adult attachment system

Critical/sensitive period - two years where attachment system is active, after that hard to make attachments

Internal working model - mental representation of primary attachment acts as template for other relationships.  Positive one leads to better relationships with others

P = Mixed evidence for monotropy

E = Schaffer and Emerson found small percentage of infants formed multiple attachments at same time as primary attachment

E = Bowlby suggested babies form unique attachment to only one caregiver

L = Does not consider other research evidence

P = Clear evidence to support social releasers

E = Brazleton et al. asked primary attachment figure to ignore social releasers

E = Responsive babies became distressed and then curled up, motionless

L = Social releasers initiate caregiving and interaction

P = Support for internal working model

E = Predicts patterns of attachment through generations

E = Bailey et al. studied mothers: those with poor attachments to parents more likely to have poor attachment to child

L = Supports attachment behaviour being passed on

Ainsworth set up controlled lab study to assess quality of attachment to caregiver

Five categories of behaviour: proximity seeking, exploration & secure base, stranger anxiety, separation anxiety, response on reunion

Seven 3 minute episodes: child encouraged to explore, stranger enters, caregiver leaves, caregiver returns stranger leaves, caregiver leaves, stranger returns, caregiver returns

Secure (75%) - happy to explore, needs secure base, moderate stranger/separation anxiety, requires comfort on reunion

Insecure-avoidant (25%) - free exploration, no secure base, no stranger/separation anxiety, doesn't require comfort on reunion

Insecure-resistant (3%) - less exploration, needs secure base, high stranger/separation anxiety, resists comfort on reunion 

P = High inter rater ability

E = Bick found 94% agreement for people watching same child

E = Controlled conditions & well operationalised categories

L = Confident on identified attachment type

P = Culture bound

E = Takahashi found Japanese mothers are rarely separated from infants - higher separation anxiety

E = Different cultures bring up children differently

L = Not generalisable to countries outside of Western Europe and USA

P = Temperament as confounding variable

E = Ainsworth assumed main influence on anxiety was quality of attachment

E = Kagan said genetically influenced personality has more effect

L = Challenges internal validity - doesn't measure quality of attachment

van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta analysis:

• Looked at proportion of attachment types across countries and within countries
• Secure most common - ranged from 50% (China) - 75% (Britain)
• Individualist cultures insecure-resistant all lower than 14%
• Collectivist cultures insecure-resistant above 25% but less insecure-avoidant
• Variation within cultures 150% greater

Simonelli et al. (Italy)

• 76 12 mths assessed using Strange Situation and compared with previous studies
• Mothers varied in terms of education and professions
• 50% secure, 36% insecure-avoidant - lower secure attachment than before
• Due to increasing numbers of working mothers and childcare
• Cultural changes effect attachment type

P = Meta analysis has large sample

E = About 2000 babies and primary attachment figures in van Ijzendoorn study

E = Simonelli's also had large comparison groups

L = Increased internal validity by reducing bias or unusual participants

P = Strange situation biased to American/British culture

E = Desgined by American researcher based on British theory (Bowlby)

E = Eg. some collectivist cultures rarely separate from infants

L = Imposed etic of applying theories that may not apply to values and behaviour in other cultures

P = May not represent cultures

E = Meta-analysis compared countries not cultures

E = van Izjendoorn and Sagi found similar attachment types to Western studies in urban Tokyo, but more insecure-resistant in rural areas

L = Comparisons between countries have little meaning - cultural characteristics should be specified

Continued care is essential for good intellectual and emotional development

Separation is child not being in prescence of primary attachment figure, deprivation is losing emotional care

Separation during critical period of first 30 months leads to psychological damage

Intellectual development: mental retardation, lowered IQ

Emotional development: affectionless psychopathy (lack of affection, guilt & empathy)

Bowlby 44 thieves study

44 teenagers accused of stealing and families interviewed to find prolonged separations.  Signs of affectionless psychopathy monitored

14 were affectionless psychopaths, 12 of these had prolonged separation.  5 of remaining 30 had experienced separations 

Prolonged early separation causes affectionless psychopathy

P = Sources of evidence flawed

E = Goldfarb studied traumatised war orphans who had poor after care 

E = Factors may have caused developmental difficulties

L = Confounding variables in research affect validity

P = Counter-evidence

E = Lewis partially replicated 44 theives study with 500 people

E = Early prolonged separation did not predict criminality or difficulty forming relationships

L = Other factors that have not been considered

P = Animal studies demonstrate maternal deprivation

E = Levy et al. showed temporarily separating baby rats from mother had a permanent affect on social development

E = Maternal deprivation has long-term effects

L = Same must be assumed for humans even with generalisability issues

Disinhibited attachment: equally friendly and affectionate towards familiar people and strangers

Intellectual development: mental retardation but only in children adopted after 6 months old

Rutter et al. English & Romanian adoptee:

165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.  Longitudinal study assessed physical, cognitive & emotional development at 4, 6, 11 and 15.  Control group adopted British children

Half had mental retardation.  Adopted before 6 months = 102, 6 mths - 2yrs = 86, 2+ years = 77. Adopted after 6 mths had disinhibited attachment 

Zeanah et al. Bucharest Early Intervention

Strange Situation assessed 12-31 months olds who had been in institiution.  

19% securely attached.  65% disorganised attachment

P = Studying Roman orphans has practical applications

E = Led to improvements in how children are cared for e.g. keeping carers more consistent .

E = Child is able to form normal attachments and avoid disinhibited attachment

L = Children can develop normally even in care

P = Issues with generalisability

E = Romanian orphanages have particularly bad standard of care and attachment formation compared with others

E = Other orphanages or maternal deprivation may not give same results

L = Unusual variables cannot be applied to many other scenarios

P = Children not randomly assigned to conditions

E = Rutter et al. didn't interfere with adoption process so more friendly sociable ones may have been adopted first 

E = The poor development may not have been due to time of adoption but personality of child

L = Random assignment removes confounding variables so Bucharest study is more reliable

Internal working model - first attachment template for others, affects parenting style

Positive first experience - functional, loving relationships, behave appropriately in them

Negative first experience - struggle to form relationships, behave inappropriately in them

Secure infants less likely to bully, insecure-avoidant most likely victims, insecure-resistant most likely bullies

Hazan and Shaver - Romantic relationships

Analysed reply to love quiz.  Assessed current and important relationships, general love experience and attachment type.

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

Secure had longer lasting romantic relationships

Avoidant jealous and feared intimacy

P = Evidence on continuity is mixed

E = Internal working model suggests infant attachment type is the same for future relationships

E = Zimmerman assessed infant and adolescent attachment type to parents - little relationship between them

L = Internal working model not important in development

P = Validity issues

E = Don't use strange situation but questionnaires/interviews years after infancy

E = Dishonest answers or unrealistic views affect validity

L = Data collected will not all be accurate

P = Influence of attachment type is exaggerated

E = Clarke and Clarke describe influence as probablistic

E = Attachment problems do not cause bad relationships just make greater risk

L = Too pessimistic about peoples futures