4.1.3 Attachment Flashcards
attachment
- a strong reciprocal emotional bond between an infant and a primary caregiver (usually the mother)
caregiver-infant interactions in humans
- there are several ways infants and caregivers can communicate to help develop an attachment between them, including;
- reciprocity; infants and caregivers initiate and respond to each other’s signals, with interactions going back and forth, e.g. when a baby smiles, it’ll often make the mother smile back
- interactional synchrony; when the infant and caregiver become synchronised in their interactions, mirroring each other, e.g. by mimicking their facial and body movements
caregiver-infant interactions - strengths
- reciprocity; Feldman (2007) conducted an observational study which found that mothers responded to their babies in a reciprocal way 2/3 of the time
- interactional synchrony; Isabella et al. (1989) found that a better quality of maternal care and secure attachment styles were associated with higher levels of mother-infant synchrony
- interactional synchrony; Meltzoff and Moore (1977) found that infants copy the hand movements and facial expressions of caregivers
- natural observation studies like these have higher ecological validity, but are also generally well-controlled, allowing researchers to study behaviour in a systematic way
caregiver-infant interactions - limitations
- some features of caregiver-infant interactions are more important for forming a bond than others, e.g. there’s little evidence to suggest motherese strengthens bonds between mothers and babies, but lots of research suggests physical contact appears to be important
- observer effects may have decreased validity in the research support
- it’s hard to see if the infant attaches any meaning to the gestures, or if they’re just imitating them, which weakens the idea that infants already show signs of a deep emotional bond with mothers
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
- aimed to investigate the formation of early attachments
- they conducted a longitudinal, naturalistic observation of 60 babies from the same housing estate in Glasgow, over an 18-month period
- the results showed that 50% of babies showed separation anxiety towards their primary care giver in the first 25-32 weeks
- the babies showed the strongest attachments to those who gave them the highest quality of care, i.e. responding to them sensitively, interacting with them, etc. rather than those who just spent the most time with them
- from this, they developed the stages of attachment
the stages of attachment
- stage 1; asocial stage; 0-a few weeks old; babies learn to separate humans from objects, and prefer the company of humans, but they can’t really distinguish between different human faces
- stage 2; indiscriminate attachment; 2-7 months old; the baby can tell the difference between different human faces, and starts to prefer the familiar ones, but they still don’t have a strong preference for who cares for them
- stage 3; specific attachment; 7 months onwards; the baby has a particularly strong attachment to its primary caregiver, and demonstrates separation anxiety from being away from them, and has a fear of strangers
- stage 4; multiple attachments; 9 months onwards; the baby begins forming attachments to other familiar faces, e.g. grandparents, but they still have the strongest one with their primary caregiver
stages of attachment - strengths
- the longitudinal aspect of the study allowed the same infants to be studied over time, increasing the internal validity of the research
- high external validity as the observation was carried out by the parents whilst the babies were behaving naturally, so it was measuring normal, everyday behaviour, and eliminates observer effects
- there was minimum psychological harm, as babies were being studied in their own home, so it wasn’t stressful
- they were observed once a month, which isn’t enough
stages of attachment - limitations
- schaffer and emerson used a limited sample, e.g. everyone was from the same area of Glasgow, so isn’t representative of other areas where child-rearing practices may be different and can’t be generalisable
- may lack temporal validity as families are very different now to how they were in the early 1960s, e.g. same-sex, single parents, etc. are all more common and accepted now
- evidence from interviews and observations may be biased and unreliable
- takes a nomothetic approach which is inflexible as it doesn’t apply to all cultures, e.g. research suggests children in other cultures can form multiple attachments before specific ones
the role of the father
- from Schaffer and Emerson, the most common second attachment was formed with the father
- they found that 75% of infants in their study formed a secondary attachment to their father by 18 months, and 29% did so within a month of forming a primary attachment, suggesting the father is important but unlikely to be the primary attachment figure
- however, the role of fathers has significantly developed since then and they tend to be more hands-on with their children now
- societal changes such as more mothers working full-time has led to fathers having a more active role and it’s more common for then to be the infant’s primary caregiver
research into the role of the father
- Geiger (1996) found that mothers are more associated with caregiving and nurturing, whereas fathers are more playful
- Grossman (2002) conducted a longitudinal study looking at how the relationships between parents and children changed from infancy to teenage years, and he found that the father is less important than the mother in adolescence in terms of nurture, but if the father was more playful with the child when they were young, the teenage relationship with both parents is stronger, so it supports Geiger’s work
- Field (1978) found that if the father was the main primary caregiver from before the infant forms a specific attachment, they seemed to have a more maternal role and be more nurturing and caring, demonstrating the flexibility in the role of the father and how men can respond to the different needs of their children
the role of the father - strengths
- oestrogen underlies caring behaviour, so men lack the emotional sensitivity that women have, so they’re less psychologically equipped to form an intense attachment
- there are now higher expectations of fathers in Western societies
- when fathers are given parental leave, it can improve the attachment kids make with their fathers, because the mother is more likely to be the primary caregiver when only she has maternal leave and spends all her time with the child
the role of the father - limitations
- field found that when fathers are the primary caregiver, they adopt maternal roles, so the level of responsiveness is key for attachment, not the gender
- stereotypes can affect male behaviour
- evidence that children from same-sex or single-parent families didn’t grow up differently from those in 2-parent families, so it undermines the idea of fathers having distinct roles
- Freeman et al. (2010) found that the gender of the child affects their attachments, as boys tend to prefer their father as an attachment figure than girls
animal studies of attachment
- ethology; the study of non-human animals to learn more about humans
- lots of early psychological research was conducted on animals as it’s generally considered more ethical than conducting it on humans
- there are many similarities between humans and animals that can inform knowledge of human psychology
Lorenz (1935) - imprinting
- Lorenz conducted a study looking into imprinting
- imprinting is the idea that some animals, particularly birds, develop an attachment to the first moving object they see when they’re born
- method;
- he split up a batch of 12 geese eggs into 2 groups of 6
- one (control) group were hatched naturally by the mother
- the second (experimental) group were hatched in an incubator, and Lorenz himself stayed close and was the first moving object they saw after birth
- he marked the goslings to identify which group they were in, then mixed them together in a box, then lifted it and recorded their behaviour
- results;
- the naturally hatched goslings followed their mother immediately after birth, whereas the ‘Lorenz’ goslings followed him around
- this demonstrates imprinting, as the newly hatched goslings developed an attachment to the first moving object they saw, regardless of whether it was their mother or not
- Lorenz noted that imprinting occurred within 4-25 hours after birth
Lorenz’s imprinting study - strengths
- he supports the idea of a critical period as he found that imprinting needed to occur within 25 hours after birth, which supports Bowlby’s idea of a critical period of 30 months for newborn humans to form attachments
- it was a field study, so has high ecological validity
- highly reliable as the experiment has been repeated
- weakens learning theory as the goslings imprinted on him before he fed them
Lorenz’s imprinting study - limitations
- humans are more complex and very different to geese, so it’s unclear from the study the extent to which imprinting occurs in newborn babies, i.e. attachment isn’t likely to be such a quick process in humans
- the small sample sizes limit how far we can generalise the results
Harlow (1958) - food vs comfort
- Harlow wanted to test whether baby monkeys would prefer a source of food or a source of comfort and protection as an attachment figure
- method;
- 16 baby rhesus monkeys were separated from their mothers after birth
- they were placed in a cage with two ‘surrogate’ mothers; one made of wire mesh with a feeding bottle, and one made of soft cloth without a feeding bottle
- he observed how long the monkey spent with each ‘mother’
- he would occasionally expose them to loud noises to test which mother they preferred under stress
- results;
- monkeys spent more time with the soft cloth mother, only going to the wire mother to feed
- they also used the soft cloth one to cling to for support if frightened, and as a safe space to explore the cage
- Harlow concluded monkeys have an innate need for comfort via physical contact, and it’s more important for attachment than food, and a lack of physical contact is likely to cause stress in infant monkeys
Harlow’s food vs comfort study - strengths
- highly influential in how we saw infant-caregiver relationships
- high internal validity as it was a lab experiment with strict control of variables
- Green (1994) argues that monkeys are similar to humans as we have similar neurological structures, so some inference is possible
- weakens learning theory as monkeys preferred the attachment figure without food
Harlow’s food vs comfort study - limitations
- ethical concerns as it caused immense psychological harm to the infant monkeys
- the impacts couldn’t be repaired, e.g. the monkeys often self-harmed and couldn’t attach to their own offspring
- in such cases, a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to see whether the ethical costs are greater than the benefits of an improved understanding
- methodological concerns, because as an animal study, it’s unclear whether the results can be generalised to humans
learning theory
- explains that attachments are not innate, but they’re learned and formed when an infant receives food - they learn to ‘love’ the person who feeds them
- classical conditioning occurs when food (UCS) causes pleasure (UCR) and becomes associated with the caregiver (NS), so the infant learns to associate the feeling of pleasure (CR) with the caregiver (CS)
- operant conditioning may also occur, e.g. if a caregiver reduces the unpleasant feeling of hunger, it can negatively reinforce attachment towards them
learning theory - strengths
- theoretical support, as it’s based on behaviourism, which has some supporting evidence such as Pavlov’s demonstration of classical conditioning in dogs, which may apply to humans and attachment behaviours
- increased credibility, as each step is observable, lab experiments were used with high control of variables, the experiments were replicable, and obtained objective data
learning theory - limitations
- Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that 39% of infants developed a primary attachment to someone other than their mother, who was the one to feed them
- animal studies don’t support this explanation, as Lorenz’s goslings imprinted soon after being born without any time to learn, and Harlow’s monkeys preferred the attachment figure without food
- research has shown that we can learn through association and reinforcement, but the reward or association tool may not always be food
- highly reductionist in only looking at food as the main drive behind attachment, and overly simplistic in ignoring innate qualities that may also be factors
bowlby’s evolutionary ideas
- Bowlby (1969) argued that attachment is vital to our survival and too important to be left to be learnt, so humans evolved an innate capacity to form an attachment to one (monotropic) main attachment figure from birth - usually the mother
- i.e. if infants don’t attach to primary caregivers, then they’re left to fend for themselves and will die out, so attachment behaviour is pre-programmed from birth
- infants may develop other attachments beyond this, but he says they’re secondary and much less important
- he says there’s a critical period (9 months - 3 years) within which an infant can develop attachments, and after this period the infant will have much difficulty in forming one, which can lead to long-lasting psychological damage, so it’s essential they form it in this period for healthy psychological development