Attachment

Attachment

1. Introduction to attachment

   • Caregiver-infant interations
     • Interactions: Babies have frequent and important interactions with their caregiver.
     • Reciprocity: Mothers respond to infants alertness. From 3 months close attention between mother and infant
     • Interactional synchrony: Interactions become co-ordinated. Isabella et al: quality of attachment related to synchrony.
     • Evaluation
       • Hard to know what is happening: Observe simple gesture and expression, and assume infants intentions.
       • Controlled observations: Capture fine detail of interactions.
       • Purpose of synchrony and reciprocity: Feldman- just observations, purpose not understood.
   • Attachment figures
     • Parent-infant: Traditionally mother-infant, other attachment figures like the father might be important.
     • The role of the father: Grossman et al- attachment to fathers less important but fathers may have a different role- play and stimulation.
     • Fathers as primary carers: Field- fathers as primary carers adopt attachment behaviour more typical of mothers.,
     • Evaluation
       • Inconsistent finding: Different research questions overall picture is unclear.
       • Children without fathers aren't different: Suggests the father role is not impotant.
       • Fathers not primary attachment: May be due to traditional gender roles or biological differences.
       • Evaluation extra: Socially sensitive research- working mothers.

2. Shaffer's stages of attachment

   • Key study: Shaffer and Emerson
     • Aims: To investigate the age of attachment formation and who attachments are formed with.
     • Method: Mothers of 60 Glasgow babies reported monthly on separation anxiety.
     • Findings: Most babies showed attachment to a primary caregiver by 32 weeks and developed multiple attachments soon after this.
     • Evaluation
       • Good external validity: Observations were in participants' natural environments.
       • Longitudinal design: Same participants were observed at each age, eliminating individual differences as a confound.
       • Limited sample characteristics: All families were from the same area and over 50 years ago, so may lack generalizability.
   • Stages of attachment
     • Asocial stage: Little observable social behaviour.
     • Indiscriminate attachment: More observable attachment behaviour, accept cuddles from any adult.
     • Specific attachments: Stranger anxiety and separation anxiety in regard to one particular adult.
     • Multiple attachments: Attachment behaviour directed towards more than one adult (secondary attachments).
     • Evaluation
       • Asocial stage: Social behaviour is hard to observe in the first few weeks but this doesn't mean the baby is 'asocial'.
       • Conflicting evidence: Van IJzendoorn et al- research in different contexts has found multiple attachments may appear first.
       • Measuring multiple attachments: Just because a child protests when an adult leaves does not necessarily mean attachment.
       • Evaluation extra: Schaffer and Emerson used limited measures of attachment.

3. Animal studies of attachment

   • Lorenz's research
     • Procedure: Goslings saw Lorenz when they first hatched.
     • Findings: Newly hatched chicks attach to the first moving object they see (imprinting).
     • Sexual imprinting: Adult birds try to mate with whatever species or objects they imprint on.
     • Evaluation
       • Generalizability: Birds and mammals have different attachment systems so Lorenz's results may not be relevant to humans.
       • Some observations questioned: Guiton et al- birds imprinting on rubber gloves did later prefer their own species.
   • Harlow's research
     • Procedure: Baby monkeys given cloth or wire 'mothers' with feeding bottle attached.
     • Findings: Monkeys clung to cloth surrogate rather than wire one, regardless of which dispensed milk.
     • Maternally deprived monkeys: Grew up socially dysfunctional
     • The critical period: After 90 days attachments wouldn't form.
     • Evaluation
       • Theoretical value: Demonstrated that attachment depends more on contact comfort than feeding.
       • Practical value: Howe- informs understanding of risk factors for child abuse.
       • Ethical issues: Suffering of the monkeys would be human-like.
       • Evaluation extra: Can Harlow's findings be applied to humans as monkeys are still different to us.

4. Explanations of attachment: Learning theory.

   • Learning theory
     • Classical conditioning: Caregiver (neutral stimulus) associated with food (unconditioned stimulus). Caregiver becomes conditioned stimulus.
     • Operant conditioning: Crying behaviour reinforced positively for infant and negatively for caregiver.
     • Attachment as a secondary drive: Attachment becomes a secondary drive through association with hunger.
   • Evaluation
     • Animal studies: Lorenz and Harlow showed that feeding is not the key to attachment.
     • Human research: Schaffer and Emerson- most primary attachment figures were the mother even when others did most feeding.
     • Ignores other factors: Cannot account for the importance of sensitivity and interactional synchrony.
     • Evaluation extra: Some elements of conditioning could still be involved. There is a newer learning theory explanation.

5. Explanations of attachment: Bowlby's theory

   • Bowlby's theory
     • Monotropy: One particular attachment is different in quality and importance than others.
     • Social releasers and the critical period: Innate cute behaviours in the first two years.
     • Internal working model: Mental representations of the primary attachment relationship are templates for future relationships.
   • Evaluation
     • Mixed evidence for monotropy: Some babies form multiple attachments without a primary attachment. Suess et al- other attachments may contribute as much as primary ones.

6. Ainsworth's strange situation

   • Procedure: 7-stage controlled observation. Assessed proximity seeking, exploration and secure base, stranger and separation anxiety, response to reunion.
   • Findings: Infants showed consistent patterns of attachment behaviour.
   • Types of attachment: Secure- enthusiastic greeting, generally content. Avoidant- avoids reunion, generally reduced responses. Resistant- resists reunion, generally more distressed.
   • Evaluation
     • Support for validity: Attachment type predicts later social and personal behaviour, e.g. bullying.
     • Good reliability: Different observers agree 90%+ of the time on children's attachment types.
     • Culture bound: Attachment behaviour may have different meanings in different cultures so the Strange Situation may be measuring different things.
     • Evaluation Extra: What does the Strange Situation measure? There is at least one more type of attachment.

7. Cultural variations in attachment

   • Key study: van Ijzendoorn: Compared rates of attachment type in 8 different countries. Found more variation within rather than between countries.
   • Other studies: Simonella et al- Italian attachment rates have changed, may be due to changing practices. Jin et al- Korean attachment rates similar to Japan, could be due to similar child-rearing styles.
   • Conclusions: It appears that attachment is innate and universal and secure attachment is the norm. However cultural practices affect rates of attachment types.
   • Evaluation
     • Large samples: Reduce the impact of anomalous results so improve internal validity.
     • Samples unrepresentative of culture: countries do not equate to cultures nor to culturally specific methods of child-rearing so can't make generalisations.
     • Method of assessment is biased: Research using the Strange Situation imposes a USA test on other cultures (imposed etic)
     • Evaluation Extra: Alternative explanation for similarity. The Strange Situation lacks validity.

8. Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation

   • Separation versus deprivation: Physical separation only leads to deprivation when the child loses emotional care.
   • Critical period: The first 30 months are critical and deprivation in that time causes damage.
   • Effects on development: Goldfarb: Deprivation causes low IQ. Bowlby: emotional development e.g. affectionless psychopathy.
   • 44 thieves study (Bowlby): many more affectionless psychopaths than controls had a prolonged separation.
   • Evaluation
     • Evidence may be poor: Orphans have experienced other traumas. Bowlby may have been a biased observer.
     • Counter-evidence: Lewis: sample of 500, no link between early separation and later criminality.
     • A sensitive period: Bowlby exaggerated the importance of the critical period.
     • Evaluation Extra: Animal studies show effects of maternal deprivation on social development. Failure to distinguish deprivation from privation.

9. Romanian Orphan studies: Effects of institutionalisation

   • Rutter's ERA study: 165 orphans adopted in Britain. Some of those adopted later show low IQ and disinhibited attachment.
   • Bucharest Early Intervention project: Random allocation to institutional care or fostering. Secure attachment in 19% of institutional group versus 74% of controls.
   • Effects of institutionalisation: Disinhibited attachment and delay in intellectual development is institutionalism is prolonged.
   • Evaluation
     • Real-life application: Both institutional care and adoption practise have been improved using lessons from Romanian Orphans.
     • Fewer extraneous variables: Romanian orphans had fewer negative influences before institutionalisation than e.g. war orphans.
     • Romanian orphanages are not typical: Conditions were so bad that results may not generalise to better institutions.
     • Evaluation Extra: Ethical issues, especially Bucharest Early Intervention project. Practical applications to adoption and institutional care practise.

10. Influence of early attachments on later relationships.

    • Attachment and later relationships.
      • Internal working model: Bowlby's idea that the primary attachment relationship provides a template for later relationships.
      • Relationships in later childhood: Kerns- securely attached children have better friendships. Myron-Wilson and Smith- securely attached children less likely to be involved in bullying,
      • Relationships with romantic partners: McCarthy- Securely attached adults have better relationships with friends and partners. Hazan and Shaver- secure responders had better and longer lasting relationships, avoidant responders had a fear of intimacy.
      • Parental relationship: Bailey et al- mothers' attachment type matched that of their mothers and their babies.
    • Evaluation
      • Evidence is mixed: Zimmerman at al found little relationship between quality of attachment and later attachment.
      • Low Validity: Most studies assess infant attachment by retrospective self-report which lacks validity.
      • Association does not mean causality: A third factor like temperament might affect both infant attachment and later relationships.
      • Evaluation Extra: The influence of attachment is probabilistic. Self- report is conscious but working models are not.