Attachment

Longitudinal study: 60 babies from Glasgow visited once every month for 1st yr, then again at 18months. mothers interviewed to measure lvl of attachment by asking about 7 situations e.g. separation/stranger anxiety measured.
FINDINGS: separation anxiety by 7mths (50%), by 40 weeks (80%) & also multiple attachments (30%). by 1 yr showed multiple attachments (78%) & 33& had 5+.
1) PRE-ATTACHMENT: 0-3mths = start smiling/becoming 'sociable' from 6 weeks. can easily be comforted by anyone, but can distinguish between ppl & value human company, starting to develop attachments.
2) INDISCRIMINATE ATTACHMENT: 3mths-7/8mths = recognising/forming bonds w/ carers via reciprocity & I.S., however, behaviour towards inanimate objects is similar. towards end of phase, they're more content when in presence of others but can be easily soothed by familiar figures, but still allow strangers to handle them.
3) DISCRIMINATE ATTACHMENT: 7/8mths onwards = shows separation anxiety & 'protests' in absence of primary caregiver & said now to have formed specific attachment, showing fear of strangers.
4) MULTIPLE ATTACHMENTS: 9mths onwards = shortly after showing specific attachments, they develop multiple, usually towards relatives/child-minders.

EVALUATION:
-pre-attachment stage false: other research has found 2/3s of 2-day yr old babies prefer their mothers faces over strangers.
-longitudinal study: Schaffers' research allowed him to accurately measure stages babies went through & what times, raising validity to understand the dynamic processes babies go through during development.
-generalisability: only 60 babies, all from same social class & area, so we cant use stages as universal measurement, e.g. other cultures have multiple caregivers as a norm.

RECIPROCITY = similar to an unspoken conversation between the caregiver & the infant, so any behaviour which is produced as a response to the others' behaviour, both are active contributors.
INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY = relates more to the timing & pattern of the interaction, it also has reciprocity but places an emphasis on the emotions. their behaviour is synchronised as its moving in the same/similar pattern, so it tells us about the quality of the interaction

MELTZOFF & MOORE -studied 2 week old babies
-adults exhibited 1 of 3 facial expressions & a hand gesture & babies reaction was filmed
-independent observers (didnt know about adults) watched the babies reaction, which they scored 2x
-all scores <.92, showing an association between the adults expression/hand gesture & the babies action, showing reciprocity from a young age.
ISABELLA ET AL -observed mother-infant interactions @ 3-9months, then again @ 12months
-using the strange situation, found good interactional synchrony leads to secure attachments.
-minimally involved mothers who're intrusive/unresponsive/over-stimulating led to insecure attachments
-shows importance of I.S which is mutually rewarding, well-timed & reciprocal in healthy interactions & that the opposite of this could lead to insecure attachment

EVALUATION:
(R) supporting: M&M research shows existence of reciprocity at a very early age (innate). study had independent observers & behavioural categories (mouth opening/termination of mouth opening, tongue protrusion/termination of tongue protrusion) & association between adults & infants behaviour was evident. (their research supports reciprocity & Isabellas research supports I.S but not reciprocity).
(R) controlled observations: filmed from multiple angles, babies dont know/care being observed, films can be re-watched & high inter-rater reliability (.92), which all raises validity for reciprocity & I.S.
(R) reliability: KOEPKE couldnt find clear association, MARIAN found babies couldn't distinguish between live/videotaped interactions from mothers, showing they aren't responding to the adult.
(I) socially sensitive: believed I.S is essential for healthy attachment, but mothers going back to work after giving birth, so have less opportunity for this.

TODAYS SOCIETY
-previous research de-emphasised fathers' role in childs development (e.g. Bowbly's monotropy), suggesting mothers' constant care was needed for healthy development & fathers' function was to economically provide. however, recent ONS stats show working mothers' w/ dependent children increased from 3.7M (1996 to 4.9M (2017). cultural changes also now expect fathers' to play bigger part.
ARE THEY DIFFERENT FROM MOTHERS
-Paquette: research found fathers adopt risk-taking behaviour, engaging in physical play w/ kids & preferred in positive emotional state, wanting stimulation, whereas mothers preferred in states of emotional distress.

CAN THEY BE AS SENSITIVE AS MOTHERS
-research of 4mth old babies who're filmed during interactions w/ primary CG mothers' & primary & secondary CG fathers'.
-found primary CG fathers' spent more time smiling, imitating & holding infants, showing importance of this behaviour in attachment building.
HOW IMPORTANT IS ROLE OF FATHER
-the quality of relationship w/ child (secure, reciprocal, sensitive & supportive) matters more than fathers' characteristics, so relationship can be strong w/ either mother or father.

EVALUATION:
-not enough research: inconsistent research due to different aims (some interested in role of father as secondary CG, which are interested in how mothers' role is distinct & others' as primary CG, which are interested in how fathers can adopt more maternal role) so we cant make firm conclusion of the role of the father.
-contradictory research: studies have shown children growing up in single-parent/same-sex parents dont develop any differently to those in heterosexual families which shows fathers' secondary role isnt important.
-social sensitivity: some research (Bowlby) suggests woman need to stay at home & fathers dont have means of being a primary CG, which feminists have said places burden of responsibility on women & blames them for anything that could go wrong. more recent research has highlighted sensitivity of relationship, not gender as the issue, which has resulted in legal changes e.g. both parents allowed to take maternity leave.

RESEARCH:
-Schaffer: by 40 weeks 29% form M.A, by age of 1, 78%, 33% of this figure have 5+ M.A.
-Schaffer: M.A last stage of attachment, believed they have to go through other 3 stages before this.
-Bowlby: babies have 1 key attachment figure (usually mother) which is followed by secondary attachments, but not as important as Primary CG.
-Role of father: fathers preferred in physical play. fathers exhibiting smiles, holding & imitating infants can develop healthy attachments.

EVALUATION:
-unclear when M.A occurs: Schaffer & Bowlby highlight importance of developing primary attachments, before secondary, however other research suggests M.A form from the outset, not 9mths, so either S's research incorrect or cant be generalised across cultures.
-importance of M.A: Bowlby believed M.A arent as important as primary C.G, however, other research found all attachments are of equal importance in developing internal working model.
-economic implications: research into children raised in community Kibbutz ( looked after by multiple adults, but had family-based sleeping arrangements) found 80% secure attachment to mother w/ no avoidant, showing no difference in importance of primary & multiple attachments. this is positive as it shows both mother & father can attend work w/ no negative affect on child, good for both family & ecomony.

LORENZ:

-looks at imprinting (where birds are mobile from birth, thus following & forming attachment to first moving object they see). recorded their behaviour from hatching.

-split goose eggs into 2 batches, 1 birthing naturally from mother & 1 from incubator, w/ Lorenz as first moving thing they see.

-found incubator group followed Lorenz, natural birth group followed mother, which persisted even when the groups were mixed up.

-critical period of 4-25hrs, if imprinting didnt occur, goslings wouldnt attach to mother. reported that goslings imprinting on humans would try & later mate w/ them.

HARLOW:
-16 baby rhesus monkeys placed in cage w/ soft towelling mother & harsh wire mother.
-4 monkeys used in each of 4 conditions: wire mother producing milk, none from soft towel mother(1), wire mother no milk, towel mother producing milk(2), wire mother producing milk(3), towel mother producing milk(4).
-loud noise test to see mother of preference during distress.
-found they always preferred towelling mother, clinging on to her & even reaching over to get milk from wire mother in C1. monkeys in C3 showed signs of stress (diarrhoea) & in loud noise test clung to towel mother for comfort.
-in adulthood, they're more aggressive & ones who had babies neglected them.

EVALUATION:
-generalisability: hard to generalise Lorenz's experiment as birds have less complex/emotional attachment systems, however, its found monkeys have the same brain structure of humans, only difference is the size/number of attachments. but all animal studies arent appropriate to generalise to humans.
-usefulness of research: they have still been important in the understanding of humans early attachment. L's study of critical period influenced Bowlby (if critical period missed, negative consequences) also internal working model, Bowlby also developed this, so strengthened our understanding.
-ethics: use of animal research for the pursuit of academic conclusions for human behaviour could be seen as detrimental for animal species, however, its impossible to do this nature of research on humans & it could be very helpful in helping social workers identify risk factors in early childhood, so a cost-benefit analysis has to be considered.

CLASSICAL
-food (UC) produces natural pleasure response (UCR).
-childs feeder (NS) initially produces no response, over time, baby starts associating feeder w/ pleasure associated w/ food, so pleasure becomes a CR & the feeder becomes CS.
OPERANT
-all humans have innate drives, so baby's innate drive of food is primarily reinforced by the satisfaction coming from eating.
-the caregiver providing the food, consequently becomes the secondary reinforcer, so child starts seeking caregiver as they're a source of reward, thus becoming attached.
-attachment behaviours such as crying/separation distress are developed as they learn by performing this action, they maintain the food source/caregiver.
-feeding is repeated to avoid infant discomfort, so acts as negative reinforcement.

MONOTROPY: one special emotional bond formed w/ biological mother (not always) which is different/more important than any other. more time spent w/ them the better.

CRITICAL PERIOD: if monotropic attachment doesnt occur by 2yrs, difficulties in adulthood forming attachments are of risk.

PROXIMITY: closeness to primary C.G is important as it protects them from harm (evolutionary speaking & also in the present) it ensures survival.

INTERNAL WORKING MODEL: monotropy is important for child's mental representation/model of what relationships are meant to look like for their future. strongly attached will lead to socially & emotionally competent relationships & good parenting of their own children. weakly attached will lead to emotional & social difficulties in both childhood/adulthood.

SOCIAL RELEASERS: important for attachment as they elicit caregiving from parent e.g. crying, smiling etc.

EVALUATION:
-contradicting research: Harlow showed infant attached to figure of comfort, not figure giving food. Lorenz showed imprinting occurred before they were fed, so formed attachment regardless of food.
-too basic/environmental reductionism: ignores role of interactional synchrony (Isabella et al's research) & assumes complex human attachment can be explained by food=pleasure. studies of extended families found babies still preferred their mothers, even after being breastfed/looked after by other females for 6 months.

SECURE ATTACHMENT - strong/contented attachment to caregiver, developed through sensitive responding from caregiver of infants needs. they will be comfortable w/ social interaction/intimacy & is related to subsequent healthy cognitive & emotional development.
INSECURE ATTACHMENT - develops from lack of sensitive responding from caregiver to infants needs & can result in poor subsequent emotional/cognitive development.
1) insecure-avoidant: avoiding social interaction/intimacy w/ others.
2) insecure-resistant: both seek & reject intimacy & social interaction w/ others.

PROCEDURE:
-lab experiment using babies 12-18mths, the caregiver & the 'stranger'
8 STAGES:
1) 30 secs, researcher brings caregiver into room & leaves.
2) 3 mins, caregiver sits, infant free to explore room.
3) 3 mins, stranger enters room, after a while talks to caregiver, then to infant. caregiver then leaves.
4) 3 mins, stranger continues trying to talk/play w/ infant.
5) 3 mins, stranger leaves as caregiver returns, at end of this stage caregiver leaves.
6) 3 mins, infant alone in room.
7) 3 mins, stranger returns & tries to interact w/ infant.
8) 3 mins, caregiver returns & interacts w/ infant, stranger leaves

FINDINGS:

-66% securely attached: harmonious & cooperative relationship, high willingness to explore, high stranger anxiety, enthusiastic reunion w/ caregiver, some separation anxiety but could be soothed.

-22% insecure-avoidant: avoids social interaction w/ both caregiver & stranger, treating them similarly, high willingness to explore, low stranger anxiety, no separation anxiety, avoids contact on reunion w/ caregiver.

-12% insecure-resistant: seeking & rejecting social interaction from caregiver, low willingness to explore, high stranger & separation anxiety, seeks & rejects caregiver on reunion.

CONCLUSION:

-good for measuring independent differences, secure attachment most prevalent in North America & its argued to be linked to later healthy emotional/social development, & mothers behaviour also affects this.

EVALUATION:
-ecological validity: the high lvl of control could possibly lead to too much artificiality (unfamiliar playroom) leading to distortion of mother & child behaviour, so may not reflect real attachment in the household. However, replicated study of 1yr olds in their homes found higher security/sociability (still securely attached) & those who werent showed small changes, which means it is ecologically valid as the findings have been reflected in home situation.
-high inter-rater reliability: found to be as high as 94%, showing findings arent just subject to who's observing them, also many replications of strange situation, so high reliability.
-culture bound: cant generalise across cultures as Japanese mothers are rarely separated from infants, so would exhibit high avoidant-attachment, & in reunion stage, mothers' would pick up & hug child, so hard to observe. in Germany, independence is encouraged, thus children may seem insecure-resistant. differences in rearing practices means strange situation can only accurately measure attachment in some cultures (North-America).

PROCEDURE:
-meta-analysis of studies of 32 studies from 8 different countries, including 2k children.
FINDINGS:
-secure attachment was most common in all nations, in Western cultures, insecure-avoidant was 2nd most common, for non-Western this was insecure-resistant.
-variation within cultures was 1.5x more greater than between cultures.
SIMILIAR STUDY:
-found for American infants; 71% secure, 12% resistant, 17% avoidant. German infants; 49% avoidant, Japanese infants; 0% avoidant.

CONCLUSION:
-secure attachment being most common shows potentially innate/universal attachment style, however, variations in resistant/avoidant between cultures shows different rearing practices in between & also within big countries e.g. sub-cultures.
-strange situation may not accurately measure attachment style in different countries: American mothers' interpret child calling them during nap time as negative, however, Japanese mothers' saw this as sign of secure attachment. infants showing amae ('indulgent dependence') is interpreted positively in Japanese cultures, but negatively in Western cultures.

EVALUATION:
-reliable research tool: strange situation has 94% inter-rater reliability & high standardisation/controlled research means we can be confident that the attachment style observed wherever in the world would be the same, regardless of who's observing.
-cultural bias: strange situation is ethnocentric & is based on American ideals of behaviour e.g. American's dont value amae & Japanese do. therefore, lacks external validity & cross-cultural findings may wrongly present what's considered as healthy attachment within the non-Western culture as insecure.
-population validity: only 3 studies included from non-Western countries, none were taken from African countries, where sensitive responding includes more physical touch, whereas its more verbal in America. not acknowledging other countries means we cant make firm conclusions of cross-cultural variations.

MATERNAL DEPRIVATION: bond formed w/ mother is broken for long period of time.

HYPOTHESIS:

-prolonged separation occurring before 2.5 yrs (critical period), especially w/out substitute, results in severe effects on childs wellbeing, but deprivation is a risk until 5 yrs.

-can result in poor internal working model, low IQ/struggling academically, behavioural disorders where schools/police find it hard to control them & possibly affectionless psychopathy, whereby child shows no remorse/guilt over actions such as stealing.

BOWLBYS 44 THIEVES STUDY

-experimental group (44 children referred for stealing/thieves) & control group studied in child guidance clinic.

-diagnosed 16 thieves as affectionless psychopaths & found 86% of them had previous prolonged separation from mothers, compared to only 4% of control group.

SUPPORT RESEARCH: SPITZ
-researched children from orphanages in South-America, who had very little attention/warmth from the staff, thus became apathetic & some suffering from anaclitic depression.
-this was associated w/ the lack of emotional care & long-term disruption from their mothers.

EVALUATION:
-confusing deprivation w/ privation: Bowlby never made it clear if the childs attachment bond was ever there in the 1st place. both the 'thieves' & the orphans experienced several changes in home/principle caregiver during early childhood, making conclusions of privation, rather than deprivation, & it may not lead to bond disruption w/ good substitute care, questioning validity of hypothesis.
-contradictory evidence: replication on larger sample of 500 youth found history of prolonged separation from mother wasnt precursor of criminality/difficulty forming relationships, & that other factors may have been the cause (mother's emotional instability & tendency to neglect/reject) of behavioural/social/emotional problems rather than deprivation.
-applications: Bowlby's theory has led to significant effect on childrearing & the way children are treated in hospital; before parents were discouraged from visiting child in hospital, but now there's beds for parents in child wards, which shows real-life applications, benefitting well-being of family life.

RUTTERS ERA STUDY
-procedure:
165 Romanian orphans who were adopted before 3.5yrs by UK families were assessed using cognitive functioning, physical & intellectual measures at ages 4, 6, 11, 15+ & then compared to a control group of British children adoptees.
-findings:
PHYSICAL = 50% orphans were in the bottom 3% of low weight of the population & were also abnormally short, however, most caught up by the end of being 4yrs old.
EMOTIONAL = by 6yrs, many showed disinhibited attachment (not wary of strangers, inappropriate affectionate behaviour etc), by 11yrs, this was still prevalent in 50% orphans, but recovery was much better for those adopted before 6months old.
COGNITIVE = mean IQ @ age 11yrs: 102 (adopted before 6mths) 86 (adopted between 6mths-2yrs) 77 (adopted after 2yrs).
those adopted after 6mths also showed signs of autistic symptoms (social functioning issues) & ADHD symptoms (inattention/overactivity).
-conclusion:
those adopted before 6mths showed no significant issues, contrast to those adopted after 6mths, however, the fact they all improved to some degree shows recovery is possible w/ strong subsequent care.

ERA STUDY:
4 patterns found in institutional deprivation at age 6 & were still present several years later in the minority of children:
1) Quasi-Autism = social/communication issues & obsessive preoccupations
2) Disinhibited attachment = no wariness w/ strangers, inappropriate affectionate behaviour, leaving caregiver for stranger.
3) Cognitive impairment = low IQ & poor academic performance.
4) Inattention/overactivity = problems w/ concentrating/focussing on task at hand.

PROCEDURE:

-(2020) MRI scans were taken of 67/165 of the same orphans from Rutter's original study & compared to 21 of original control, all 23-28 yrs by this time.

FINDINGS:

-Romanian orphans brains 8.6% smaller than control

-Longer orphans were institutionalised, smaller their brain volume.

-Lower brain volumes associated w/ low IQ & ADHD symptoms.

CONCLUSION:

-shows effects of institutionalisation on a neuro-biological basis

EVALUATION:
-revolutionary longitudinal study: ERA is multi-method, scientific & reliable, allowing us to see long-term effects, unlike Bowlby who theorised that those who'd experienced long term institutionalised deprivation could make great psychological recovery when put into loving adopted families. it showed real-life effects using the MRI scans & revolutionised our understanding of impact early adversity in adult development.
-natural experiment: extraneous variables (those adopted before 6mths could just be naturally better at coping & we dont know if the extent of privation differed for each orphan) means there's issues establishing cause + effect, however more recent brain scans strengthens the research as it highlights how the extraneous variables weren't the causal factor.
-real life application: children in institutions allocated 2 max. carers so they can develop normal attachments.

INTERNAL WORKING MODEL: early attachment provides blueprint for quality of childhood relationships
-child cries w/ no parental response = doesnt comfort friend if they're upset.
-child cries w/ sensitive parental response = comforts & supports upset friend.
RESEARCH:
-Smith: insecure results in being the bully, avoidant results in being bullied, secure attachment results in neither.
-Belsky: securely attached children more likely to form close relationships w/ other kids than insecurely-attached.

INTERNAL WORKING MODEL: early attachment provides blueprint for future adult relationships & ability to parent.
-good IWM = successful adult relationships
-poor IWM = negative adult relationships/relationship w/ child
CONTINUITY HYPOTHESIS: child attachment types reflected in adult relationships.
RESEARCH:
-The love quiz: relationship length for secure (10yrs), avoidant (6), resistant (5). resistant was must vulnerable to loneliness, followed by avoidant. positive correlation between attachment type (more successful for secure) & quality of love experiences.

the belief that the internal working model isnt table throughout life & can change as result of experiences.

EVALUATION:
-biological determinism: undermines role of free will by suggesting those w/ poor IWM will definitely go on to have poor adult relationships. other research has found role of real-life events such as transition to parenthood, counselling/treatment can change insecure childhood attachment into positive adult relationships.
-methodological issues: prototype research is retrospective; adults may find it hard to recall early childhood events, or those w/ current positive IWM are more subject to a positive bias of their childhood attachment.
-correlational research: only weak correlational coefficients were found, so we cant establish cause + effect & make firm conclusions. research has found secure attachments resulting in healthy adult relationships vary between 0.1-0.5, which is too weak to make firm conclusion, other factors may attribute.