Attachment

Reciprocity- From birth, babies have periodic 'alert phases' signals they are ready to play, mothers pick up on these signals 2/3rds of the time. Feldman and Eidelman 2007. From 3 months this becomes increasingly frequent and involves close attention to each other's verbal signals and facial expressions. Feldman 2007. A key element of this interaction is reciprocity, an action is reciprocal when it elicits a response from the other.  Traditionally babies took a passive role but now seen as more active, Brazelton et al saw this as a'dance' because they respond to each other's moves. 

Two people are seen as synchronised if they act out the same action simultaneously. Feldman 2007- The temporal coordination of macro-level social behaviour'. When the mother and infant interact in such a way that behaviour mirrors the other. Meltzoff and Moore. Observed the beginning of interactional-synchrony in babies as young as two weeks old, adults displayed 1/3 facial expressions or gestures, the response from the babies filmed. There was a correlation between the expression or gesture in the adult and the babies response. Believed to be important in the development of attachment. Isobella et al, 30 mothers and infants, assessed level of synchrony. Higher the level of synchrony the better quality attachment. 

Schaffer and Emerson say babies become attached to the mother first ( around 7 months) and formed a secondary attachment within weeks or months later. 75% had formed an attachment to the father by 18 months. Determined by protest when the father left. 

Grossman 2002, carried out a longitudinal study, observing parents behaviour and its relationship to the quality of attachment in adolescence. He found a correlation between quality of mother-infant attachment and attachment in adolescence. Suggesting fathers role is less important but it has been suggested that the father just has a different role, one concerned with play and stimulation. 

Fathers as primary caregivers- Some evidence to show fathers take on the role of primary caregiver when the mother is absent. Field- filmed 4 months of babies interaction with primary mothers and fathers and secondary fathers. Primary fathers-like the mothers- spent more time holding and smiling with the baby than the secondary caregiver fathers. This interaction is seen as key to building attachment. fathers can be nurturing, the key to attachment is not gender but the degree of responsiveness. 

Difficult to know when studying infants, many studies show patterns of interaction but are just movements. We don't know what is happening from their perspective is it conscious or deliberate? Cannot be certain these mother-infant interactions are special. 

Highly controlled observations, both mother and infant are filmed from multiple angles for later study. Every fine detail. Babies do not know they are being filmed, out rules any demand characteristics or researcher bias, the study has good validity. 

Feldman, synchrony and reciprocity describe behaviours that occur at the same time, can be reliably observed but doesn't tell us why they occur? Some evidence they are important in attachment, stress and empathy. 

Socially sensitive, suggests some rearing practices are wrong and mothers cannot return to work after having a baby, they must spend time developing synchrony and reciprocity or the baby will be disadvantaged. Implications for those who need the money. 

Inconstsiant findings on fathers, each researcher are interested in different things eg, primary father or secondary father. Some see fathers as having a different role, others see it the same as the mother. Doesn't answer the question of what the role of the father is. 

Grossman suggests the role of the father as a secondary attachment is important yet MacCallum found children who grow up in single-sex families or one parent families develop the exact same, this suggests the role of the father isnt as important. 

Fathers may not become primary attachment figure because of social reasons, traditionally the women reared the children so men may feel as if it isnt their job. Or female hormone oestrogen makes women act more maternal because they are biologically predisposed to be the primary figure.

Socially sensitive. 

Schaffer and Emerson- 1964- aimed to investigate early attachments, when they developed, the intensity and who to. 

60 babies, 31 male and 29 female, these were all from Glasgow. The majority from working-class families. Babies and mothers visited at home every month for the first year than at 18 months. The researcher asked mothers questions about protests the babies showed in everyday separation, eg when she left the room- a measure of separation anxiety- The researcher also assessed stranger anxiety, the infant's anxiety response to unfamiliar adults. 

Between 25 and 32 weeks of age, about 50% of babies showed signs of separation anxiety towards a particular adult, usually the mother (65%) or both (27%) - specific attachment. This tends to be towards the caregiver who was most sensitive to the baby's expressions and signals (reciprocity) not necessarily the one they spend the most time with, 40% wasnt attached to the person they spent the most time with. A month later they started to show fear of strangers. By 40 weeks, 80% of babies had a specific attachment and 30% displayed multiple attachments to people they saw the most eg, grandparents.

Good external validity carried out in the family home, most research conducted by parents (apart from stranger anxiety) and reported later, behaviour unlikely to be affected by the presence of the researcher. Most likely behaved naturally, no demand characteristics. 

However, the study relied on a lot of self-report, social desirability bias. Parents may have reported children to have good attachments to look like good parents. 

The longitudinal study, the same children observed throughout, could have used the cross-sectional design by using different children from different stages as this would have been quicker. Longitudinal design have better internal validity, do not have the confounding variable of individual differences. 

Limited sample of 60 babies only, all from the same district and social class and over 50 years ago. Child-rearing practices from one culture to another change as well as historically. Cannot generalise results to other cultures or historical periods. Outdated. 60s most likely stay at home mothers, fathers are more likely to stay at home now than they were then. 

Stage 1- Asocial stage- 0-6 weeks- The baby is recognising and forming bonds with carers, similar behaviour towards human and objects, they show preference towards certain adults and these are easier to calm them. Babies happier in the presence of humans. 

Stage 2- Indiscriminate attachment- 6 weeks-7 months-  display more observable social behaviour, show a preference for people rather than inanimate objects, recognise and prefer adults. Do not show separation or stranger anxiety and will accept cuddles from anyone.

Stage 3- Specific attachment- 2-7 months- Majority of babies display anxiety towards strangers and become anxious when separated from a certain adult (65% mother), this is the primary attachment figure, not necessarily the person they spend the most time with but the one who responds to signals best. 

Stage 4- Multiple attachments- 10 months+- Shortly after showing attachment to one figure, they begin to show towards others who they regularly spend time with. Secondary attachment. in Schaffer, 29% had formed secondary attachment within a month of forming a primary attachment, by one year, the majority had formed this attachment. 

Asocial stage, babies have poor coordination and are basically immobile, it is difficult tio make judgements based on observations of behaviour when we don't know whether behaviour is conscienouce or deliberate. There isnt much behaviour to observe, evidence not reliable.

Not clear when children get multipole attachments, most indicate babies form a single attachment first- bowlby. Others, particularly the ones who work in cultural settings where multiple caregovers are the norm ie, collectivist society, believe babies form multiple attachments from the outset. 

The study meastured attachment by the baby getting upset when the figure left the room, this might not be a true measture of attachment. Bowlby points out that children have playmates as well as attachment figures and get disressed when the playmate leaves the room, this does not signify attachment. Schaffer and emersons study does not account for the diffrence in playmates and secondary attachment figures.

Early 20th century, ethologists conducted animal studys seeing the relationship between mother and infant to apply to human relationships. Lorenz first observation of imprinting was when he was a child and a neighbour gave him a newly hatched duckling which followed him around. 

Lorenzo set up a class experiment, he divided goose eggs, half were hatched with the mother, the other half in an incubator, where lorenzo was the first moving object they saw. 

The incubator group followed lorenz everywhere whereas the control group, born with the mother, followed her everywhere. When the groups were mixed, the control still followed the mother and the experimental group still followed lorenz. 

He called this imprinting, bird species that are mobile from birth attach to the first moving object they see. He also identfied a critical period that this must happen in, can be as brief as a few hours after birth. If imprinting did not take place within those hours, the chicks didn't attach themselves to a mother figure. 

Sexual imprinting, he also investigated the relationship between mating preference and imprinting, he found that those who they were imprinted on also courted that species. Eg, the birds later courted humans. In 1952 he observed a peacock born in a reptile house, the peacock first saw a giant tortoises, as an adult, the peacock would only show courtship towards giant tortoises, Lorenz concluded this as sexual imprinting. 

Harry Harlow 1958, Rhesus monkeys. more similar to humans than Lorenz birds. 

Contact comfort- Harlow observed new borns in a bare cage died but those with a soft cloth did not.

He tested the idea that a soft cloth serves some functions of the mother, 16 baby monketys, half had the 'wire mother' the other half the 'cloth mother', the wire mother dispensed milk in the first condition. In the second the cloth mother dispensed the milk. 

The baby monkeys spent about 23 hours a dayon the cloth mother, regardless of whether it dispensed milk or not, seeking comfort from the soft one. This shows that 'contact comfort' is more important to the monkeys than food when becoming attached. 

They folowed up the monkeys to see the effects of early maternal deprivation, they found severe concequences. Those who had the wire 'mother' suffered the worst yet the ones with the cloth 'mother' still did not develop normal social behaviour. They were more agressive, less social and bred less. As mothers, some deprived there children, some even attached and killed there own offspring. 

Like Lorenz, Hartlow concluded there was a criticla period of 90 days that the infant could only form attachments within. After this period deprivation was inevitable. 

Lorenz research added to our understanding but we have difficulties applying it to humans. The mammalian attachment system is quite different to birds eg, mammalian mothers show more emotion to offspring than birds, mammals may be able to form attachments at any time. Not appropriate to generalise Lorenz's ideas to humans.

Guiton et al, chickens who were imprinted with washing up gloves would try to mate with them as Lorenz predicted, however eventually learned to mate with other chickens. Impact of imprinting not as permanent as Lorenz believed. 

Theoretical value, Harlows study shows attachment doesn't develop as a result of being fed by the mother but by contact comfort. It also highlighted the need for quality early relationships to develop socially normal. The ability to hold a job down and rear children.

Practical application, helped social workers understand the risk factor of neglected children and the need to intervene. Also helped breeding programmes, the need for monkeys to have proper attachment figures. 

The species are considered close relatives of humans which makes the study more generalizable than Lorenz, however, is criticised as they monkeys experienced extream damage, their emotions are considered to be human-like. Harlow himself was aware of this, referring to the metal mother as 'iron maiden' similar to the medieval torture device. 

Monkeys are still not humans. 

Dollard and Miller proposed that caregiver-infant attachment could be described through the learning theory, referred to as 'cupboard love', as it emphasises the need for the caregiver to provide food. Children learn to love whoever feeds them.

Classical conditioning- learning to associate two stimuli together so we begin to respond to one in the way we respond to the other. In the case of attachment, food serves as an unconditioned stimulus, producing the pleasure response. The caregiver is initially the neutral stimulus- producing a neutral response. When the same person provides food over time they become associated with the food- when the baby sees them there is an immediate expectation of food. The neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus, once this has taken place, the caregiver now produces a conditioned response of pleasure- love. 

This involves learning to repeat behaviour or not, depending on consequences. If behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, the behaviour is more likely to be repeated, if it produces a bad consequence, it is less likely to be repeated. The behaviour has been reinforced. It explains why babies cry for comfort, crying leads to a response from the caregiver, eg feeding. this reinforces the behaviour. The baby then directs the crying towards the caregiver to gain comfort, who responds with 'social suppressor' behaviour. Two-way reinforced, the caregiver gets negative reinforcement as the crying stops. Mutual reinforcement strengthens the bond. 

Drive reduction, Hunger is a primary drive, it's an innate biological motivator. We are motivated to eat to reduce the hunger. Sears suggested when the caregiver provides food, the primary driver of hunger becomes generalised towards them, the attachment is a secondary drive learned by the association between caregiver and primary drive. 

Animal studies show we don't necessarily attach to those who feed us, Lorenz's geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained this attachment regardless of who fed them. Harlow's monkey attached to the comforting mother over the mother who fed them. These both suggest attachment does not occur as a result of feeding. Since learning theorists believed humans and animals to be the same, this must be equivalent to humans too. 

Schaffer and Emerson, many babies attached to there mother as the primary attachment even tho they didn't do most of the feeding. This shows feeding is not the key element to attachment, no unconditioned stimulus or primary drive involved.

Learning theory ignores other factors associated with forming attachments such as research into reciprocity and interactional synchrony. Studies have shown that the best quality attachments are with sensitive carers that pick up on the most signals and respond appropriately. It is very hard to correlate these findings with cupboard love, if love depended entirely on feeding then there would be no need for complex interactions and we would expect to find to the relationship between them and the quality of infant-caregiver attachment. 

Some elements of conditioning could still be relevant, it is credible that the association between the primary caregiver and comfort/social interaction is part of what builds attachment.

Hay and Vespo, proposed a newer explanation for infant-caregiver attachment based on social learning theory, the behaviour is largely the result of imitation and modelling behaviour. Babies learn attachment by modelling behaviours such as hugging and praising them when they display this behaviour. 

Bowlby rejected the learning theory as he stated that if it was true, babies of age 1 and 2 should take readily to whoever feeds them, which they do not. Bowlby proposed an evolutionary explanation- attachment was an innate system that gave a survival advantage, so they stayed close to mothers for protection. Starting with wild animals, now things like electricity and traffic.

Placed great emphasis on child's attachment to one particular caregiver, he believed this attachment to be more important and different to others. He called this person the 'mother' but was clear that this person did not have to be biological. He believed the more time we spent with this figure-the better. 

- Law of continuity, the more continuous and predictable a child's care, the better the quality of attachment. 

-Law of accumulated separation, the effects of every separation from the mother add up. The safest dose is zero dose. 

Bowlby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate social releases such as smiling and hand grabbing to encourage attention from adults, these activate the adult's attachment system- make them feel love towards the baby. The mother also has innate predisposition to become attached that are triggered by social releases. The interplay between infant and adult attachment system gradually builds up the relationship beginning in the early weeks of life. Bowlby said there is a critical period of about 2 years where the infant's attachment system is active. He viewed this as more of a sensitive period. If an attachment is not formed at this time, the child will find it harder to form attachments in later life. 

Bowlby proposed that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with the primary caregiver which they then serves as a model for future relationships. A child whos first relationship is loving and reliable will then expect every relationship to be loving and reliable, bringing these qualties to future relationships. If a childs first relationship involves poor treatment, they will expect this or even treat people like this in future relationships. Most importantly, it affects the childs ability to be a parent themself as they base there parenting on how they were parented. Explains why families are often similar through generations.

Bowlbys belief that only one attachment is important is criticised and not supported by other research such as Schaffer and Emerson who found 30% of babies formed multiple attachments instead of just one. Unclear that the first attachment is special, studies show the mother is important to later attachment-Suess- yet does not show that the attachment is special, it might just be stronger, not different in quality. 

Brazelton et al observed mothers and babies and found high levels of interactional synchrony. They then instructed attachment figures to ignore the 'social releases', initially the babies were distressed but the gave up, curled up or lied motionless. This supports Bowlby's theory of the significance of social releases in getting responses from the caregiver.

Bailey et al, assessed 99 mothers with one-year-old babies on the quality of attachment to their own mothers using standard interviews, whilst assessing the attachment to the babies by observation. Correlation between reports of poor attachment with mothers and the children classified as poor. This supports internal working model being passed through families. 

Socially sensitive, implications on the lifestyle choices of mothers, Law of accumulated separation may make the mothers feel the need to stay at home, not to impact there child's future. Feminists say this puts a terrible burden on the mothers, making them feel responsible for any of the child's failures and pushing them into lifestyle decisions.

Does not take into account temperament on the development of social behaviour. Some babies are more anxious or quiet than other because of genetic makeup which later affects sociability, not attachment. Bowlby overemphasised the need for attachment. 

Ainsworth-1969- The aim was to be able to observe key attachment behaviours as means of assessing the quality of a child's attachment to a caregiver. 

Controlled observation procedure to measure the security of attachment a child displays towards a caregiver, in a room, with controlled conditions and a two-way mirror where psychologists observe behaviour. Behaviours that are used to judge include

- Proximity seeking (infant with a fairly good attachment will stay close to caregiver) 

- Exploration and secure-based behaviour ( good attachment enables the child to explore using caregiver as a secure base)

- Stranger anxiety ( sign of attachment is showing anxiety when a stranger approaches) 

- Separation anxiety (to protest during separation)

- Response to reunion 

Child and caregiver enter an unfamiliar room

1. The child is encouraged to explore- tests exploration and secure base

2. The stranger enters and tries to interact with the child- stranger anxiety 

3. The caregiver leaves the child and stranger together- separation and stranger anxiety

4. Caregiver returns, stranger leaves- reunion and exploration base

5. The caregiver leaves the child alone- separation anxiety 

6. stranger returns- stranger anxiety

7. Caregiver returns and is reunited- reunion behaviour

Found distinct patterns in the way children behave, identified 3 attachment. 

1. Secure attachment- Type B- Children explore happily but regularly return to the caregiver (proximity seeking and explore based behaviour) Show moderate separation distress and stranger anxiety. They require and accept comfort from the adult in the reunion phase. 60-75% of UK babies are classified as this. 

2. Insecure-avoidant- Type A- Explore freely, do not seek proximity or show secure base behaviour. Show little or no reaction when the caregiver leaves and make little contact when they return. Little stranger anxiety and require no comfort in the reunion. 20-25% UK toddlers.

3. Insecure-resistant- Type C- Seek greater proximity than other babies, explore less, huge stranger and separation anxiety but resist comfort when reunited. 3% of babies. 

The theory of attachment type is a strong predictor of later life, babies assessed as secure typically go on to have greater outcomes, success in school to romantic relationships and friends in adulthood. Insecure-resistant is associated with the worst outcome, including bullying in later life and adult mental health problems. Can explain subsequent outcomes. 

Very good inter-rater reliability, different observers generally agreed on what attachment to classify them as. Strange situation is highly controlled and behavioural categories easy to observe. Bick et al, looked at inter-rater reliability and found agreement on attachment for 94% of babies. We can be confident that attachment type didn't depend on the observer. 

Difficult to generalise, set in western society, USA. Cultural differences in childhood experiences and caregivers behaving differently. Takahashi- the test doesnt really work in Japan as Japanese mothers are rarely separated from the baby so they show high levels of separation anxiety, during the reunion, the mothers rushed to the baby so the response was harder to observe. 

The test measures the child's response to anxiety, however, the main source of anxiety is questioned. Kagan- temperament is more important on the influence of behaviour of the child than attachment. Temperament may be a confounding variable.  

Soloman- suggested another attachment type, atypical/disorganised attachment, a mixture of resistant and avoidant behaviours. 

IJendoorn and Kroonenberg conducted a study to look at proportions of secure, insecure-resistant and insecure-avoidant attachments across a range of countries. They also looked at differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture. 

Procedure- Located 32 studies of attachment where the strange situation had been used to predict proportions of infants. These 32 studies were conducted in 8 countries, 15 USA. 1990 children, the data were meta-analysed and results combined for sample size.

Findings- There were wide variations in results, secure attachment was most common in all countries yet varied from 75% Britain to 50% China. Insecure resistant the least common, ranging from 3% in the UK to 30% in Israel. Insecure-avoidant most common in Germany and least common in Japan. Variations in the same country were 150% greater than between countries. in the USA one sample as low as 46% securely attached and one 90% securely attached. 

Italian study-Simonella et al, conducted a study of attachment to see if previous studies still match today's findings. Researcher assessed 76 12-months olds using the strange situation. Found 50% secure, 36% insecure-avoidant, a lower rate of secure than found in previous studies. She suggested this was because the mothers are working more and often relying on childcare. These suggest cultural changes can make a dramatic difference to patterns of attachment. 

Korean study- Jin et al- Conducted a study to compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies, strange situation, 87 children. Overall proportions of insecure and secure babies were similar to that of most countries, however only one child insecure avoidant. This is quite similar to results found in Japan, IJzendoorn and Kroonberg, where they use similar rearing strategies. 

Secure attachment tends to be the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby's idea that attachment is innate and universal and this type is the universal norm. Also shows that cultural practice has an influence. 

Large sample size, in IJzendoorn study, nearly 2000 babies and primary attachment figure. Simonella and Jin had large groups compared to previous research. The large sample increases internal validity, reduces the impact of anomalous results caused by bad methodology or unusual participants.

Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg claimed to study cultural variations whereas the comparisons were between countries, not cultures. In countries there are different child-rearing practices, one sample might over-represent poverty, the stress of this might affect caregiving and patterns of attachment. IJzendoorn and Sagi found the Tokyo sample to be similar to the western studies but the more rural sample had an over-representation of insecure- resistant individuals. This means that comparison between countries may actually have no meaning and the cultural specifics need to be specified. 

Imposed Etic, the study was designed by an American psychologist based on a British Psychologists ideas- Bowlby- questioned whether it can be applied to other cultures. Grossman points out that a lack of separation anxiety and lack of emotion on reunion indicates insecure attachment yet in Germany is seen as being independent rather than avoidance.

Bowlby explains similarities in attachment through innate, universal behaviours that take place across the world whereas IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg said this was due to mass media which influenced parenting styles. 

Strange situation lacks validity, Kagan suggests attachment is more related to temperament than the relationship with the attachment figure. This means strange situation is measuring anxiety not attatchment. 

1951, focused on the idea that continued presence of nurture from the mother or mother-substitute is essential for the normal psychological development of babies and toddlers, emotionally and intellectually. He said mother love for mental health was as important as vitamins and proteins for physical health. Being separated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences. 

Separation vs deprivation- Separation is when the child isnt in presence of the primary attachment figure. This only becomes detrimental if the child starts to become deprived (missing an element of care). Brief separation is not significant but extended ones can lead to deprivation causing harm. 

The critical period- The first 30 months are critical for psychological development. If a child is separated from the mother for an extended time and not in the care of a suitable replacement, the child is deprived of emotional care and therefore psychological damage is inevitable. 

Intellectual development- If a child is deprived of early maternal care for too long during the critical period then they would suffer delayed intellectual development, abnormally low IQ. This is demonstrated in a number of adoption studies, eg Goldfarb- lower IQs in those who remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered thus had a higher standard of emotional care.

Emotional development- Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions for others. This is a result of deprivation and can cause criminality and difficulties in developing relationships. They cannot appreciate feelings of the victim so lack remorse for there actions.

This study explained the link between maternal deprivation and affectionless psychopathy.

The sample consisted of 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing. They were all interviewed for characteristics of affectionless psychopathy, lack of affection, guilt and empathy for victims. The families were also interviewed to see if there were any prolonged periods of separation. A control group of emotionally disturbed young individuals (not criminals) were also set up to see how maternal deprivation affected those who weren't criminal. 

He found that 14/44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths. 12/14 had experienced prolonged separation from mothers in the first two years of life. Only 5 of the remaining thieves experienced this separation. In the control, only 2/44 had experienced prolonged separation. He concluded that prolonged separation in infancy caused affectionless psychopathy. 

Bowlby's sources included orphaned children during the war and thieves, these are all flawed as evidence as they were often already traumatised, especially war orphans who had poor aftercare as well. These factors may have caused development difficulties rather than separation. Children growing up in institutions were deprived of many aspects of care, not just maternal. 

44 thieves heavily biased, Bowlby carried out the whole study himself, including the interview, he knew what he wanted to find so, therefore, could influence answers to interpreting responses as he needed.

Hilda Lewis replicated Bowlbys study on a larger scale, 500 young people. She did not find a relationship between prolonged separation and criminality or difficulty in forming relationships. This suggests other factors may have affected the outcome of early maternal deprivation.

Research shows that damage is not inevitable so the 'critical period' is actually more of a 'sensitive period'. Some cases of very early and serious deprivation can have good outcomes if the child has good aftercare. Twin boys from Czech, isolated from 18 months until they were 7. Stepmother locked them in a cupboard. They were then looked after by loving adults and recovered fully. Shows the period is not 'critical' as suggested.

Animal studys. Levy et al, separated rats from there mother for just a day, this had serious consequences on social development but not other development. 

Rutter said Bowlby muddled up deprivation and privation. Deprivation is the loss of an attachment figure once it is formed whereas privation is never forming that attachment. He said the long-term damage was more likely to be associated with privation, not deprivation. 

The opportunity to look at effects of institutionalisation turned to orphan studies in Romania in the 90s when the Prime Minister required women to have 5 children. Many could not afford these so many children ended up in huge orphanages with very poor conditions. Many were adopted by British parents in 1989 revolution. 

Rutters ERA (English and Romanian Adoptee) Study

Rutter et al 2011, followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans in Britain to test the extent of good care on recovery from poor conditions. Physical, cognitive and emotional development were assessed age 4,6,11 and 15 years of age. 52 British adopted children at the same time used as a control group. 

On arrival, the majority of adoptees were severely undernourished and showed signs of delayed intellectual development. At age 11 the children showed different rates of recovery, related to the age of adoption. The mean IQ of those adopted before 6 months of age was 102 whereas those between 6 months- 2 years was 86 and 77 for those adopted after 2 years. Beckett noted these differences were still obvious at age 16. 

Children adopted after 6 months tended to show disinhibited attachment, including attention seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed towards any adult. Those adopted before 6 months rarely showed disinhibited attachment. 

Zeanah et al 2005, assessed 95 children, age 12-31 months who had spent around 90% of their time in institutions. Control of 50. Attachment type measured using the strange situation. Careers were also asked about any unusual behaviour, clinginess and attention seeking behaviour towards any adult (disinhibited attachment).

74% of the control group were securely attached whereas only 19% of the institution group were securely attached, 65% were the disorganised attachment. Disinhibited attachment applied to 44% institutionalised children and only 20% of the controls. 

Disinhibited attachment- Children are equally as friendly or affectionate to those they know and strangers. Most children show anxiety. Rutter explained this by having multiple attachment figures, in the Romanian orphanages, one child was likely to have 50 careworkers, neither of which they saw enough to fully form an attachment with. 

Mental retardation- In Rutters study, most children showed signs of retardation when arriving in Britain, however, most of those under 6 months of age caught up with the control group by 4 years of age. Suggesting that like emotional development, mental development can be recovered if adopted before 6 months of age- the age attachments form- Schaffer and Emerson.

Real life application, the results of Rutter enhanced our understanding, leading to changes in the way children are cared for in institutions. Langdon. Eg, childcare homes now only have a small number of carers for a child (one/two), these play a central role 'the key worker'. The 'key worker' increases the chance of the child forming a normal attachment and avoiding disinhibited attachment. Shows results are valuable in practical terms.

Romanian orphan study has less extraneous variables than other orphan studies as they were institutionalised from birth, this avoids confounding variables such as trauma before eg, abuse. Or the war orphans- loss of parents, effects of war. Increased internal validity.

The orphans are not typical, they experienced such extreme circumstances and poor conditions, can we apply these findings to modern orphans where they are much better looked after or any situation where children experience deprivation. The Romanian orphans had poor standards of care and low levels of intellectual stimulation. The unusual situational variables mean the study lacks generalisability. 

The researcher did not get involved with the adoption process they just observed, this means that they more sociable children may have been adopted first (confounding variable). Other studies such as Bucharest project did use random allocation to fostering or institutional care, methodologically better, removes confounding variables but raises ethical issues. 

Long-term effects not clear, by 16 it was clear that the children who were adopted latest suffered the most retardation, however, there is still plenty of time to 'catch up' as adults or those who appeared to have no problems, now experience issues as adults. 

Internal working model- Bowlby suggested a child's first attachment served as a mental representation for future relationships. The quality of the first attachment is crucial as it will affect all future relationships eg, loving will expect loving and will even put love into the relationship so will seek out functional relationships. Without Type, A behaviour- too emotionally close or too controlling and argumentative- Type C. A child with a bad first relationship will expect this, seek it out, they may not be able to form the relationship or not behave appropriately within them. 

Relationships in later childhood- attachment type is related to peer relationships in childhood. Secure infants tend to have the best quality childhood friendships, insecure have friendship difficulties. Kerns. Myron-Wilson and Smith assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using standard questionnaires. 196 children, age 7-11 from London. Secure children least likely to be involved in bullying, insecure-avoidant most likely to be bullied and insecure-resistant most likely to be the bullies.

Relationships with Romantic partners

McCarthy 1999, studied 40 females that had been assessed when infants for attachment type. Those assessed as secure had the best relationships and friendships, insecure-resistant had problems in maintaining friendships and insecure-avoidant struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships. 

Hazen and shaver- analysed 620 replies to a love quiz, in an American newspaper. It consisted of 3 seconds, the first assessed current/most important attachment, the second general love experiences and the third assessed attachment type by picking one of three phrases that described them best. 56% of responders were securely attached, 25% insecure avoidant, 19% insecure-resistant. Secure responders were more likely to have a better job and longer relationships whereas avoidants were jealous and had a fear of intimacy. Suggest patterns of attachment are reflected in romantic relationships.

Relationships as a parent

People tend to base their parenting style on their internal working model so family types tend to be passed through generations. Bailey et al, 99 mothers and infants through observation, interviews about there mothers. The majority had the same attachment with babies as they did mothers. 

The internal working model predicts continuity between relationships, supported by McCarthy but the evidence is mixed. Zimmerman assessed attachment in infant and attachment to parents in their teen years. Little correlation between infant and teen attachment. 

Most assessments of attachment are through questionnaires later in life not the strange situation, validity problems, assessment relies on self-report technique, depends on the respondent being honest and realistic. It also relies on accurate recall of childhood. 

studies that associate attachment type with attachment in later life, the continuity may be influenced by other factors such as parenting style or temperament, the attachment type is not always the causing factor. Counters Bowlbys internal working model. 

Bowlby criticised for overemphasising the importance of infant attachment, Clarke and Clarke said the influence is probabilistic, the child is not doomed to have bad relationships because of prior attachment. It can also make people negative about there future. 

Internal working models arent conscience but self-reports are, how can people report what they aren't aware of? At best these methods give us indirect evidence about the internal working model.