Attachment - AS

Reciprocity:

= refers to the process in which a behaviour is matched during an interaction

• eg. smiling back to others smiling at us - mutual responsiveness
• can influence a child's physical, social and cog development

= often develops in its simplest form at a very early age. According to Feldman (2007) reciprocity can be seen in interactions from 3 months of age. This was supported by Meltzoff + Moole (1997) who demonstrated that babies as young as 12-27 days who would attempt to initiate facial and physical features

= refers to how a parent's speech and infants behaviour become finely synchronised so that they are in direct response to one another - form a rythmic interaction (involves mutual focus, reciprocity and mirroring behaviour/emotion

+ serves a critical role in development outcomes in terms of self-regulation, symbol use and capacity for empathy

- Heimann showed that infantswho demonstratre a lot of imitation from birth onwards have been found to have clearif the imitation is a cause or effect of this early synchrony

- difficulit to be certain what is taking place from the infants percepective as they often behave the same with any human not just their caregiver

Researcher = Shaffer and Emerson (1964)

• studies 60 babies from glasgow at monthly intervals for the first 18 months of life. Interactions with their carers were analysed to establish if and when they displayed seperation

= results revealed that attachments were the most likely to form with carer's that were sensitive to the baby's signals

Pre-attachment/Asocial stage:

• occurs within 0-3 months
• infants are attracted to other humans preferring them over inanimate objects
• eg. smile in response to people's faces "social smile" is directed to anyone

Indiscriminate attachment:

• occurs between 3-7 months
• infants can distinguish between familia and unfamiliar people but is happy to be comforted by anyone
• infants get upset when and individual ceases to interact with them

Discriminate/specific attachments:

• occurs between 7-9 months
• special preference for a single attachment figure (monotropy)
• shows fear of strangers and unhappiness when seperated from a particular person (seperation anxiety)
• actively remains close to mother

Multiple attachments:

• occurs 9+ months
• develops attachments with other people like grandparent (2ndary attachment figure) although original attachment remains the strongest
• baby becomes increasingly independant

- not all babies follow this rigid linear pattern as attachments can potentially form at different times ---> model oversimplified/too structured

- doesn't consider different speeds of learning due to neurological disorders or negligence

- model does not account for infants without a mother (dead) and so may only have one caregiver (dad), same for those brought up with same sex parents (2 males/2 females)

- sample generated only focused on working class families ---> encounter more struggles than those placed within other classes as both parents may need to work so less time for synchrony + may contain different sized families ----> lacks pop valid

- Glasweigian pps only may hinder the accuracy of results obtained as their society different to theirs ---> cultural bias

- mothers assumed to be primary attachment figures ---> gender bias

- data was collected by direct observation or from the mother themselves ---> methods prone to bias

+ gives mother's point of view of their child's progress in attachment ---> real life applications

+ gives other factors other than food being the main source of atttachment ---> sheds light onto a fresher percepective

+ carried out under everyday conditions ---> mundane realism so conclusions formed can be said to have high validity

Researcher = Macoby 1980

Seeking proximity

    = wanting to be near/spend time with its carer

Seperation anxiety

    = baby shows increased distress upon carer leaving, even for a short period of time

    = older children may feel homesick or miss parents

Joy on reunion

    = infant welcomes carer with hugs/clinging upon return

General oreintation of behaviour towards other person

    = both baby + carer direct attention to engage each other in activities and interactions

Imprinting:

• an innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the mother which takes place during a specific time of development
• this time period occurs within first few hrs after birth (critical period)
• if imprinting doesn't happen here it probably never will

Researcher = Lorenz (1952) 

Lorenz's research suggests that organisms have a biological propensity to form attachments to one single subject

• took a clutch of grey lag gosling eggs thn divided them into 2

Group A ----> placed in incubator

Group B ----> left with natural mother (control group)

= once goslings had hatched they proceeded to follow the first moving object seen; so group A would have been Lorenz

= supports the view that having a biological basis for an attachment is adaptive as it promotes survival

= this would explain why goslings imprint after a matter of minutes due to their increased mobility therefore -----> there is less call for them to form an attachment straight away whereas humans are lessmobile at birth and so rely on an instant attachment to increase % of survival

Researcher = Harlow (1958)

Harlow conducted research with 8 rhesus monkeys which were caged from infancy with wire mesh food dispensing and clloth covered surrogate mothers to investigate which of the 2 alternatives would have more attachment behaviours for 165 days

Group A  ---> feeding bottle was placed on wire monkey

Group B ----> feeding bottle placed on cloth monkey

= all 8 monkeys spent more time with cloth covered monkey despite the fact that wire monkey offered more food

= suggests that monkeys develop more attached to something/ someone offering support and comfort

= monkeys were willing to explore a room full of novel toys when th cloth covered monkey was present but displayed phobic responses when the wire covered monkey was present

=  infant monkeys were reared in a non-isolated environment went on to develop into healthy adults

= infant monkeys that were not reared in a non-isolated envieonment became inadequate, unpredictable, difficulty mating ----> contunuity hypothesis

-  unethical

• isolatrion of infant monkeys was uneccessarily cruel
• female monkeys became inadequate, violent mothers
• when placed with normal monkeys , showede persistent fear/depression

+ influenced the theoretical work of John Bowlby

+ was vital in convincing people about the importance of emotional care within hospitals, children's homes etc ---> real life applications at the time

Learning theory suggests that attachment is a set of learned behaviours and that we are born a blank state

Operant conditioning:

• attachments can be fromed through pos + neg reinforcement
• baby cries ---> attention + comfort from parent = positive reinforcement
• parent wants crying to stop ---> gives attention = negative reinforcement
• both individuals discover that certain behaviours (eg. crying, smiling) bring desireable responses from each other (eg. attention and comfort)

Classical conditioning:

• believes attachments are formed with the carer who feeds the baby
• food provides baby with pleasure and makes them happy
• baby begins to accociate feeder (neutral stimulus) with the comfort of being fed (unconditionl stimulus)

+ evidence from Schaffer + Emerson (1964) provide support for this theory as over half of babies they looked at formed an attachment with the person caring and feeding them                            ------> association + reinforcement must have a role in attachment

- inconsistent research

= harlow's study on rhesus monkeys showed that monkeys became more attached to cloth monkey over wire monkey despite wire monkey offering food

- conclusions made from monkeys and geese cannot be extrapolated to humans as we are more complex

- theory is reductionist = attempts to reduce very complex human behaviour of attachment into an over-simplified theory that food is the only and most significant resaon for attachment

Evolutionary theory suggests that we are born with innate tendency to form attachments to increase their % of survival

Infant produces innate 'social releaser' behaviours such as crying and smiling that stimulate innate caregiving responses from adult

The determinant of attachment is not food, but care and responsiveness

Monotropic theory:

• bias towards one individual = primary attachment ----> monotropy
• infants also have secondary attachment figures that form a hierachy
• Bowlby believed that an infant became most attached to the person who responded most sensitively to the infant's social releaser's
• this provides the main foundation for emotional development, self-esteem and later relationships with peers, lovers and our own children

Internal working model:

• attachment starts as a relationship between infant and caregiver ----> gives expectations about what relationships should be like
• gradually, infant creates a model about emotional relationships
• this model of thinking is a cluster of concepts about relationships and what to expect from others - eg whether others should make us feel good or bad

Continuity hypothesis:

• IWM means that there is consistency between early experiences and later relationships and what to expect from others
• continuinity hypothesis ---> view that there is a link between early attachment and later emotional behaviour
• eg. securely attached individuals remain socially and emotionally competent
• eg. inecurely attached individuals have more social and emotional difficulties in adulthood

Researcher = Ainsworth + Bell (1970)

1) mother + child introduced to room

2) mother + child left alone to begin to play in the room

3) stranger joins mother and child

4) mother leaves baby and stranger alone

5) mother returns to comfort child and stranger leaves

6) mother leaves child alone

7) stranger returns

8) mother returns and stranger leaves

Exploration

• how willing infant explored the room using mother as a safe base

Stranger anxiety

• how distressed  the infant became to the stranger with the mother and alone

Seperation distress

• how distress the infant became when mother left the room

Reunion behaviour

• how the mother was greeted by infant upon return

+ strange situation is a valuable research tool that allows a fairly easy judgement about a infant's attachment type

+ other studies (Main, Kaplan + Cassidy 1985)  support the conclusions made babies at 18 months and 6 years had same if not similar attachment types

+ easy to replicate due to standardised procedure ---> led to rapid amount of increase in amount of research carried out into variations in attachment

- only measures relationship between child + mother ---> ignores role of the father

- test was devised using american children = culturally biased ---> findings cannot be generalised

- extraneous variables occured eg. child crying due to unnatural environment, hungry or tired and not always for the comfort of the caregiver

Securely attached

• 66% of infants were classified as securely attached
• would explore room freely and with frequent reference to mother
• mildly distressed when mother left, greeted her warmly when returned
• mothers reacted sensitively to infants

Insecure-avoidant

• 22% of infants were classes as insecure avoidant
• would explore room without reference to its mother
• no reaction when mother left and returned
• mothers often ignored infants

Insecure-resistant:

• 12% of infants were classed as insecure-resistant
• intense distress when mother left, reacted angrily when she returned
• mothers tended to be ambivalent towards the infan

Disorganised attachment

• infants tended to show confused, indecisive, disoreinted behaviour
• eg. stereotypical signs of distress such as rocking

+ methodology is quite easy to replicate due to the standardised procedure and this led to a rapid increase in the amount of research in the amount of research carried out into variations in attachment

- Japanese, German and British studies all used the strange situation that was developed in USA   -----> assumes that behaviour has the same meaning ib all cultures however, it only reflects the norms and values of American culture

Cross cultural studies:

• Bowlby believed that attachments were innate so the need to form this initial bond should be genetic and as a result experienced by infants of every culture
• However, this kind of attachment formed may vary between societies and between cultures depending upon the child rearing techniques seen most desireable in that community
• Van ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg (1988) carried out a meta-analysis combining the findings of 32 other studies of the strange situation from various countries approx 2000 children - large sample

Researcher = Van Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg (1988)

• conducted a meta-analysis of the findings from 32 studies
• interested in seeing whether there was evidence for inter-cultural differences ---> diff between cultures/countries
• also wanted to see if there was evidence for intra-cultural differences ---> diff between people of same culture

= secure attachment was the most common worldwide

= insecure avoidant was 2nd most common except for Japan + Israel

= supports the idea that secure attachment is the best for social and emotional development

= supports the idea that attachment as an innate/biological process

Researcher = Takashi (1990) 

• conducted strange situation on 60 middle class Japanese infants and their mothers
• infant rates for insecure-avoidant = 0%
• infant rates for insecure resistant = 32%
• infant rates for secure attachment = 68%
• responses of infants (severe distress) was so extreme that the study had to be stopped for 90% of infants

= study shows that strange situation is not always a valid method for measuring attachment

= eg. studies from Germany, USA, Japan all shows similar but also different behaviours that are accepted in their own culture

= independance and the willingness to explore without reference to a caregiver as a safe base is encouraged whereas, this would be seen as absurd in Japan where children show intense seperation anxiety when they lack proximity to their attachment figure

Collective cultures:

• prevalent in Asian + some African cultures
• needs of the family and larger social group are seen as important

Individualistic cultures

• mainly prevalent in Western societies
• need to be independant and self-sufficient is taught as the ideal

• traditionally, research into attachment primarily focused on mother-infant relationships
• Schaffer + Emmerson (1964) began to explore the role of the father in a child's upbringing

= 75% of babies had formed an attachment with the father by 18 months

Primary attachment figure:

• refers to an individual that has formed the closest bond with a child and is demonstrated by the intensity/sensitivity of care used towards it ---> usually biological mother but can be others eg. adoptive parent/ g parent
• Schaffer + Emmerson (1968) found that fathers were less likely to be primary attachment figures, due to fact that society at the time demanded that they worked whilst women remained at home
• However, Lamb (1997) reported that the quality of time the father spends with his child is more important than the quantity and that there is a weak correlation between father accessibbility and infant father attachment

= therefore, possible that in general men are just not as psychologically equipped  as their counterpart to form an intense attachment because they do not process the same emotional sensitivity to women

= there may also be a biological element ----> females hold more oestrogen ---> hormone linked to nurturing/regulates caring behaviour

= cultural expectations influence gender behaviours ---> traditionally, emotion and sensitivity = stereotyped as feminine traits

Researcher = Grossman (2002) 

• conducted a longitudinal study of 44 families to provide evidence suggesting that father's role is less crucial than that of the mother
• explored mother's and father's contributions to their children's attachment representation at 6,10,16 years
• play sensitivity was measured using a sensitive and challenging interactive play scale (SCIP)
• quality of infants attachments with Motehrs was related to children's attachments in adolescence

= suggests that father attachment was less important

• father's play sensitivity was a better predictor of the early infant-father security of attachment
• White + Woolat (1992) have suggested that a male's lack of sensitivity actually provides complementary aspect to attachment cos it offers an infant a different set of challenges and experiences ---> related to play/stimulation not nurturing

= children with secure attachments with father go on to have better relationships with their peers

= children brought up without fathers do less well at school and higher levels of risk taking + aggression however, Pederson (1979) pointed out that most studies were conducted on female single mothers from poor socio-economic backgrounds ---> more related poverty rather than father's absence

= when fathers are left as the sole primary caregiver they appear to change their behaviour and become far more nurturing, as if they were acting as surrogate mothers 

Reseacher = tiffany Field (1978) 

=found that lone parent fathers spent more time holding/cuddling/talking to their children ---> behaviours becomes more focused on attachment building

= fathers are important for mothers too eg.

• reduce stress, improve mother's self esteem, improves quality of mother's relationship with children

Developed by Bowlby (1953)

= suggests that children have an innate need for a continuous relationship and if this is disrupted in the early years it will have a negative effect on the child's psychological + emotional development

= the consequences of maternal deprivation are

• inability to form attachments in future
• affectionless psychopathy (inability to feel remorse)
• anaclictic depression (eg. appetite loss, sleeplessness etc)
• dwarfism - physical underdevelopment

Researcher = Bowlby (1944)

= sample of 44 delinquent thieves against a control froup of 44 emotionally disturbed adolescents who didnt steal

• 17/44 of thieves had experienced frequent seperation from their mother by the age of 2 whereas there were only 2/44 of cases in control group
• 14/44 of thieves were diagnosed with affectionless psychopatrhy

= tehrefore, these findings support MDH as there appears to be a link between disruption to attachments in the first 5 years and later maladjustment

= indicate that experiencing disrupted attachments early in life is linked to crime, emotional maladjustment and lower academic achievement, lending stronger support for the MDH

+ practical applications ---> MDH and accompanying research has been instrumental in the development of good childcare practices

+ case study gathered a lot of detail; both qualitative and quantitative data from multiple sources, using different research methods so the data was in-depth rich and valid

- retrospective recall might be inaccurate ---> bowlby asked adolescent pps to recall seperations they had experienced years earlier so responses would be subject to inaccuracies and distortions

- investigator effects:

• bowlby designed and conducted self reports himself
• bowlby's presence and interpretation could've influenced the outcome of the research
• bowlby's diagnosis of affectionless psychopaths might have been distorted by researcher confirmation bias ---> unreliable results

- conclusions are correlational ---> cannot definitely conclude that seperation was the cause of delinquency and affectionless psychopathy = might have been 3rd unidentifieable variable

- oversimplified concept ---> Rutter argues that Bowlby failed to distinguish betweenthe seperation from an attachment figure, loss of an attachment figure (deprivation) and a complete lack of attachment (privation)

Rutter distinguished between deprivation and privation and outlined problems caused by privation but that ultimately, it could be overcome by proper care

Deprivation = loss of an attachment figure, that has already been established eg. mother died

Privation = never forming a bind with an individual eg. never knowing mother

Problems caused by privation:

• no distress/anxiety when seperated from a familiar figure ---> indicates lack of attachment
• initial clinging, dependant behaviour, attention seeking, indiscriminate friendliness
• inability to keep rules from a lasting relationship, or feel guilt in later life
• antisocial behaviour, affectionless psychopathy, disorders of language, intelectual development and physical growth

= problems are not due solely to lack of attachment to a mother figure but to factors such as intellectual stimulation and social experiences

Researcher = Hidges + Tizard (1989)

= sample of 65 children who'd been placed into institutional care before the age of 4 months, where there was a no-attachment policy

= by the age of 4 ---> 24 had been adopted, 15 returned home, 26 remained in institution

= assessments by interviews + questionnaires were taken at 8 and 16 years

• 4yo = no attachments formed
• 8 + 16yo = had formed close attachments with adopted parents
• 8 + 16yo = children who returned home formed poorer attachments
• 8 + 16yo = adopted + restored children had difficulties at schgool such as attention seeking
• over 2/3 children who remained institutions were described at 4 as not caring deeply about anyone

= suggests that effects of privation can be reversed to soem extent

= problems showed by adopted children suggests that some effects are indeed long lasting

+ ethical due to there being no experimental manipulation ---> used a natural experiment meaning that the IV was naturally occuring

- lacks random allocation/used opportunity sampling ---> children were already placed in institutions not RA to different to different conditions, which means that individual differences between the children could influence the findings in an uananticipated way

- adopted children were adopted because of personal characterictics such as apparent resilience or being more attractive in some way ---> might explain why they made partial recovery than the fact that they were adopted

Researcher = Rutter et al. (2007)

= studied 111 orphans that had suffererd from the effects of institutionalisation

= sample of children were brought to UK in late 90's

= children were assessed cognitively/physically (eg. memory, height, weight) at 4, 6, 11, 15

= simultaneously 52 british adopted infants were assessed (control group)

• most of romanian orphans were smaller and showed cog deficits
• by 4yo romanian orphand caught up with british children if adopted before 6 months
• infants adopted after 6 months were more likely to seek attention from adults ---> inappropriate physical contact = disinhibited attachment

= children who spent longer institutions more likely to display signs of disinhibited attachment

= institutionalisation effects can be overcome through adequate care and the formation of an attachment but when children do not form attachments (within 6 months) then the long term consequences seem to be severe

+ supports Bowlby's/Lorenz' critical period as stronger attchments were formed with children adopted before 6 months

- romanian orphans are not typical of institutionalised children eg. early upbringing would've been very traumatic (suffered malnutrition, poor care and appalling living conditions ---> difficult to generalise findings to children suffering deprivation the UK

- children were all originally from Romania ---> ethnocentric

- all adopted by Britich families ---> culturally bias as children would be brought up with british norms and values where certain behaviours are deemed socially acceptable and others not