Attachment AO3

There are serious ethical concerns about the level of suffering that primates endured in Harlow's experiments as he intentionally orphaned infants and subjected them to high levels of stress. Some of Harlow's other experiments were even more extreme, particularly when he was testing mating abilities, and in part led to a negative view of psychology as a field of research, though thus also led to changed ethical standards. Similalrly, as Lorenz's experiment had a permanent and irreversible impact on the geese (for example those that imprinted on him were less able to mate with their own kind), this study could also be considered as unethical

There are issues with generalising findings on attachment from animal studies to human infants, as geese are very different in evolutionary terms and so may have different motivations for behaviour. Even though monkeys are genetically similar to humnas, there are still significant differences in terms of social environments meaning behaviour may vary

The knowledge gained from Harlow's studies have been applied effectively to the early childcare of human infants. For example, contact between mothers and infants is encouraged in the first few hours after birth to promote attachment, and social workers investigate cases of infant negelct as they understand the long-term damage that can result from this. It has also been argued that the long-term benefit to millions of human infants resulting from Harlow's research justifies the study in terms of cost-benefit analysis

The learning theory is a clear and believable explanation for attachment, and the underlying theories on which it is based are backed up by significant amounts of well-controlled research. Also, the theory has high face validity as it 'makes sense' that infants would cry more if they learnt that it would gain them attention

However, the learning theory applied to human feelings of attachment can be viewed as environmentally reductionist in explaining the complex interactions between the primary caregivers and their infants as a result of simplistic processes such as stimulus-response links and patterns of reinforcement

There is a lot of evidence that rejects the cupboard love theory. For example, Harlow's research demonstrated that infant monkeys did not attach to the surrogate wire monkey that provided milk, but attached to the cloth mlther that did not provide milk. It seemed to provide some level of comfort that whilst not necessary for the monkeys' survival, did fulfill an innate need. This suggests that food may not be the only determining factor in the formation of an attachment

The operant conditioning explanation for caregiver attachment to the infant is questionable in evolutionary terms as if the infant is repeatedly producing a negative effect (crying) then it more logical to remove the negative stimulus in a more permanent way, such as abandoning the infant. The removal of the negative stimulus would negatively reinforce the caregiver to repeat the behaviour, which opposes the survival of the species. Therefore, given the continual survival of the species, there must be another explanation for the attachment to the infant

Bowlby's work is based in part on Lorenz's work. Imprinting studies on geese indicate the potential strength of attachment to a single attachment figure, explained by evolutionarily significant survival advanatges. However, these are findings of animal studies applied to humans, and geese and humans are very different in biological terms, so Lorenz's findings may lack the external validity with which to be applied to human infants

Bowlby's theory is criticised as suffering from alpha bias as it overexaggerates the differences between men and women by suggesting that it is only the mother who acts as the primary caregiver and that the father's role is simply to provide for the family. This lacks temporal validity as in modern society men are expected to do an equal amount if the childcare as women. Bowlby's theory also has negative implications for working mothers or those bringing up a child who are not the child's mother e.g. grandparents

The continuity hypothesis suggests that the types of relationships that we have as adults can be predicted by the attachments we have as infants due to the development of the internal working model. This is highly deterministic as people like to believe that they have full conscious control over their own relationships. Suggesting that responsibility for the success or failure of a relationship is set in infancy has socially sensitive implications such as potentially justifying domestic abuse (e.g. because someone's mother was violent to them caused them to behave violently in all other relationships) which could have implications for the criminal justice system

As the research was highly operationalised, observers have a clear view of how a securely attached infant should behave, due to the specific criteria that Ainsworth used. For this reason, the research had high inter-rater reliabilty. To add to this, it was also a highly controlled observational study with a clear standardised procedure and behavioural categories. This means the study could easily be replicated by another researcher, as was done, improving its overall replicability

There is supporting research from Waters (1978) who assessed 50 infants at 12 and 18 months of age using the strange situation procedure. Waters found clear evidence for stable individual differences using Ainsworth's behaviour category date. The greatest consistency was seen in reunion behaviours after brief separations. 48 of the 50 infants observed were independently rated as being classified in the same category at 18 months

A criticism of this study is that it has low ecological validity, and the results may not be applicable outside the laboratory. The environment of the study was controlled and the eight scripted stages of the procedure, for example the mother and stranger entering and leaving at set times in a short time period, would be unlikely to happen in real life. This means the infants behaviour may be different in a home environment

The categories suggested by Ainsworth are not always applicable. A futher classification group, known as disorganised attachment, was subsequently identified by Main and Cassidy (1988). This would suggest that infants do not fit into all three categories

The procedure is culturally biased. The strange situation was designed according to the observations of American children. Consequently, the criteria used to classify infants are based on American values, relating to parent-child behaviour. It may be argued that this is ethnocentric, so observations of non-American infants will be judged according to American standards. For example, Japanese infants were judged as being resistant due to high levels of distress that were observed but this reflects their lack of experience with being alone during the 'infant alone' part, as Japanese infants spend most of their time being carried by their mothers. Similarly, German infants were more likely to be classified as avoidant as Germans value independence in their children so secure base behaviour is discouraged

The term 'insecure' is a value judegment in that these relationships are considered to be worse than secure ones. This ethnocentric method used elsewhere can effectively label entire cultures as defective but it also stigmatises mothers who may struggle to balance the demands of work and childcare, making the research socially sensitive

The study was not globally representative. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg recognised that data from less Western-orientated cultures were required to establish a more global perspective of attachment classifications, pointing out that Africa, South America and Eastern European socialist countries were not represented

As a disproportionately high number of studies reviewed were conducted in the USA, the overall findings would have been distorted by these. This means that the apparent consistency between cultures may not genuinely reflect how attachment types vary between cultures. Results for Germany are misleading as German families value independent behaviour so secure children may have been socialised out of using the mother as a secure base. It is also misrepresentative of Japan as infants are almost never separated from their mothers in the first two years, so are very unused to being alone

Applying strange situation procedures and behavioural categories is ethnocentric. Cross-cultural research using the strange situation judges and categorises infant behaviour according to behavioural categories that were developed following observations of middle-class American infants. This means that when researchers interpret non-American infant behaviour, it is being judged against American standards. For example, an infant exploring the room by themselves would be classed as avoidant based on American standards, but is valued as reflecting independence in Germany

Takahashi (1990) replicated the strange situation with 60 middle-class Japanese infants using the same standardised procedure and categories. Takahashi's observation revealed distinct cultural differences in how the infants responded to the stages of the procedure. The findings were 0% insecure-avoidant, 32% insecure-resistant and 68% secure. The infants became severely distressed in the 'infant alone' step and 90% of this step had to be stopped due to excessive anxiety

Simonelli (2014) conducted the strange situation with 76 middle-class Italian infants and found that there was a much lower rate of secure attachment than in historical findings, with only 50% securely attached, and a much higher rate of infants with an insecure-avoidant type (36%). Researchers suggested that this change is due to the changing demands of modern life, with more frequent separations from the primary caregiver and more complex childcare arrangements. They suggested that rather than being a problem, the relationship was still healthy, it just shifted to being insecure-avoidant as a coping mechanism by the infants in order to not be constantly showing extreme emotion when separated