Attachment AO3

One [blank_start]strength[blank_end] of this research is that caregiver infant interaction are usually filmed in [blank_start]laboratories[blank_end]. This means that other activities that might distract a baby can be [blank_start]controlled.[blank_end] Also, using films from [blank_start]different angles[blank_end] means that observations can be [blank_start]recorded and analysed[blank_end] later. Therefore, it is unlikely that researchers will miss seeing [blank_start]key behaviour.[blank_end] Furthermore, having filmed interaction means that more than one observer can record data and establish [blank_start]inter-rater reliability[blank_end] of the observations. Finally, [blank_start]babies don’t know they’re being observed[blank_end], so there behaviour does not hacking in response too observations. Therefore, data collected in such research should have [blank_start]good reliability and validity[blank_end]

One [blank_start]limitation[blank_end] of research into caregiver infant interactions is that it is [blank_start]hard to interpret babies behaviours[blank_end]. Young babies [blank_start]lack coordination[blank_end] as their bodies are almost [blank_start]immobile[blank_end]. The movement being observed are just [blank_start]small hand movements[blank_end] or [blank_start]subtle changes in expression[blank_end]. It is therefore, difficult to be sure, For example, whether a [blank_start]baby is smiling or just passing wind[blank_end]. It is also difficult to determine what is taking place from the [blank_start]babies perspective[blank_end]. Researchers also cannot know, whether a movement such as a hand is [blank_start]random or triggered[blank_end] by something that the caregiver has done. This means that we cannot be certain that the behaviour seen in caregiver infant interactions have [blank_start]special meanings.[blank_end]

One [blank_start]strength[blank_end] of [blank_start]Shaffer and Emerson’s[blank_end] research is that it has [blank_start]high external validity[blank_end]. Shaffer and Emerson conducted the observations in each [blank_start]child’s own home[blank_end] which means that the children and parents were more likely to [blank_start]act naturally[blank_end]. Therefore, the study has [blank_start]good external validity[blank_end] as the results are likely to apply to other children from a [blank_start]similar demographic[blank_end] in their own homes.

A [blank_start]limitation[blank_end] of [blank_start]Schaffer’s[blank_end] research is that it l[blank_start]acks population validity[blank_end]. The sample consisted of only [blank_start]60 working class mothers[blank_end] and [blank_start]babies from Glasgow[blank_end], who may form very different attachments with their infants when compared with [blank_start]wealthier families[blank_end] from other countries. Therefore, we are unable to [blank_start]generalise[blank_end] the results of this study to mothers and babies from other countries and backgrounds as their behaviour might not be [blank_start]comparable[blank_end].

There is research evidence that provides support for the [blank_start]role of the father[blank_end] as a [blank_start]‘playmate’[blank_end] rather than [blank_start]primary caregiver[blank_end]. Research by [blank_start]Geiger[blank_end] (1996) found that a fathers’ play interactions were more [blank_start]exciting[blank_end] in comparison to a mothers’. However, the mothers’ play interactions were more [blank_start]affectionate and nurturing[blank_end]. This suggests that the role of the father is in fact as a [blank_start]playmate[blank_end] and not as a [blank_start]sensitive parent[blank_end] who responds to the needs of their children. These results also confirm that the [blank_start]mother takes on a nurturing role[blank_end].

Research evidence suggests that fathers are not as equipped as mothers to provide a [blank_start]sensitive and nurturing attachment[blank_end]. [blank_start]Hrdy[blank_end] (1999) found that fathers were less able to detect [blank_start]low levels of infant distress[blank_end], in comparison to mothers. These results appear to support the [blank_start]biological explanation[blank_end] that the lack of [blank_start]oestrogen[blank_end] in men means that fathers are not equipped [blank_start]innately[blank_end] to form close attachments with their children. This suggests that the role of the father is, to some extent, [blank_start]biologically determined[blank_end] and that a father’s role is restricted because of their [blank_start]makeup[blank_end]. This provides further evidence that fathers are not able to provide a [blank_start]sensitive[blank_end] and [blank_start]nurturing type of attachment[blank_end], as they are [blank_start]unable to detect stress[blank_end] in their children.

Since [blank_start]Lorenz[blank_end] only studied [blank_start]non-human animals[blank_end] – a sample of [blank_start]greylag geese[blank_end] – we cannot [blank_start]generalise[blank_end] the results to humans since we are unable to conclude that they would behave in exactly the same way. The attachment formation in [blank_start]mammals[blank_end] appears to be very different to that of bird species with parents, specifically mothers, showing more [blank_start]emotional reactions[blank_end] to their offspring with the added ability of being able to form attachments beyond the [blank_start]first few hours[blank_end] after birth. So, whilst some of [blank_start]Lorenz’s[blank_end] findings have greatly influenced our understanding of [blank_start]development and attachment[blank_end] formation, caution must be applied when drawing [blank_start]wider conclusions[blank_end] about the results.

One [blank_start]strength[blank_end] of [blank_start]Lorenz’s[blank_end] research is existence of support for the context of [blank_start]imprinting[blank_end]. a study by [blank_start]Regolin and Valloritgara[blank_end] support [blank_start]Lorenz’s[blank_end] idea of [blank_start]imprinting[blank_end]. chicks were exposed to simple shape combinations that moved, such as a triangle with a rectangle in front. a range of [blank_start]shape combinations[blank_end] were placed in front of them and they followed the original most closely. This supports the view that young animals are born with an [blank_start]innate mechanism[blank_end] to [blank_start]imprint[blank_end] on a moving object present in the [blank_start]critical window[blank_end] or development, as predicted by [blank_start]Lorenz[blank_end].

The results from [blank_start]Harlow’s[blank_end] study is of [blank_start]large practical value[blank_end] since it provides insight into [blank_start]attachment[blank_end] formation. This has important [blank_start]real-world applications[blank_end] that can be useful in a range of practical situations. For example, [blank_start]Howe[blank_end] (1998) reports that the knowledge gained from [blank_start]Harlow’s[blank_end] research has helped [blank_start]social workers[blank_end] understand risk factors in [blank_start]neglect and abuse[blank_end] cases with human children which can then serve to prevent it occurring or, at the very least, recognise when to intervene. In addition, there are [blank_start]practical applications[blank_end] which are used in the care of [blank_start]captive wild monkeys[blank_end] in zoos or [blank_start]breeding programmes[blank_end] to ensure that they have adequate attachment figures as part of their care.

One [blank_start]limitation[blank_end] of [blank_start]Harlow's[blank_end] research is the ability to [blank_start]generalise findings and conclusions[blank_end] for monkeys to humans. [blank_start]Rhesus monkeys[blank_end] much more similar to humans than [blank_start]Lorenz’s birds[blank_end] and all mammals share some common attachment behaviours. However the human brain in human behaviours is still [blank_start]more complex[blank_end] than that of monkeys. This means that it may not be appropriate to [blank_start]generalise Harlow's findings to humans[blank_end]

One [blank_start]strength[blank_end] of the [blank_start]learning theory[blank_end] is that elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of [blank_start]attachment[blank_end]. It seems unlikely that [blank_start]association with food[blank_end] plays a central role in attachment but [blank_start]conditioned[blank_end] may still play a role. For example, a baby may associate [blank_start]feeling of warn[blank_end] and [blank_start]comfortable[blank_end] with the presence of a particular attachment figure. This mean that [blank_start]learning theory[blank_end] may be still useful in understanding the developments of a[blank_start]ttachments[blank_end]

One [blank_start]limitation[blank_end] of the [blank_start]learning theory[blank_end] is that both [blank_start]classical and operant[blank_end] conditioned explanations see the baby playing a relatively [blank_start]passive role[blank_end] in attachment development, simply responding to associations with [blank_start]comfort or reward[blank_end]. in fact research shows that babies play an [blank_start]active role[blank_end] in the interactions but produce [blank_start]attachments[blank_end], [blank_start]Feldman and Eidelman[blank_end]. This means that [blank_start]conditioning[blank_end] may not be an [blank_start]adequate[blank_end] explanation that any [blank_start]aspect of attachment[blank_end]

A strength of [blank_start]Bowlby’s monotropic theory[blank_end] comes from research by [blank_start]Lorenz[blank_end]. [blank_start]Lorenz[blank_end] found that upon hatching [blank_start]baby geese[blank_end], they followed the first moving thing they saw, during a [blank_start]12-17 critical period[blank_end]. This process in birds is known as [blank_start]imprinting[blank_end] and appears to be [blank_start]innate[blank_end]. [blank_start]Lorenz’s[blank_end] research supports [blank_start]Bowlby’s idea of a critical period[blank_end] and demonstrates that geese are born with behaviours which help them to survive. However, developmental psychologists when referring to human attachment often prefer to use the term [blank_start]sensitive period[blank_end], as attachments have been shown to develop beyond the [blank_start]optimal window[blank_end] of opportunity.

One [blank_start]limitation[blank_end] of [blank_start]Bowlby’s theory[blank_end] is that the concept of [blank_start]monotropy lacks validity.[blank_end] [blank_start]Shaffer and Emerson[blank_end] found that although most babies did attach to one person first, a significant minority formed [blank_start]multiple attachments[blank_end] at the same time. Also, although the first attachment does appear to have a particularly strong influence on later behaviour, this may simply mean it is stronger, not necessarily [blank_start]different[blank_end] in quality from the Childs other attachments. For example after, [blank_start]attachments[blank_end] to family members provide all the same qualities such as [blank_start]emotional support[blank_end] and a [blank_start]safe base[blank_end]. This means that [blank_start]Bowlby’s theory[blank_end] may be [blank_start]incorrect[blank_end] but there is a unique quality an [blank_start]importance[blank_end] in the child’s primary attachment.