4.1.3 Attachment

Question 1

attachment

Answer 1

• a strong reciprocal emotional bond between an infant and a primary caregiver (usually the mother)

Question 2

caregiver-infant interactions in humans

Answer 2

• 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

Question 3

caregiver-infant interactions - strengths

Answer 3

• 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

Question 4

caregiver-infant interactions - limitations

Answer 4

• 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

Question 5

Schaffer and Emerson (1964)

Answer 5

• 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

Question 6

the stages of attachment

Answer 6

• 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

Question 7

stages of attachment - strengths

Answer 7

• 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

Question 8

stages of attachment - limitations

Answer 8

• 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

Question 9

the role of the father

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

research into the role of the father

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

the role of the father - strengths

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

the role of the father - limitations

Answer 12

• 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

Question 13

animal studies of attachment

Answer 13

• 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

Question 14

Lorenz (1935) - imprinting

Answer 14

• 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

Question 15

Lorenz’s imprinting study - strengths

Answer 15

• 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

Question 16

Lorenz’s imprinting study - limitations

Answer 16

• 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

Question 17

Harlow (1958) - food vs comfort

Answer 17

• 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

Question 18

Harlow’s food vs comfort study - strengths

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

Harlow’s food vs comfort study - limitations

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

learning theory

Answer 20

• 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

Question 21

learning theory - strengths

Answer 21

• 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

Question 22

learning theory - limitations

Answer 22

• 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

Question 23

bowlby’s evolutionary ideas

Answer 23

• 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

Question 24

bowlby’s monotropic theory

Answer 24

• this evolutionary theory explains how humans form attachments through;
• A; adaptive; they give us an ‘adaptive advantage’
• S; social releasers; behaviours of babies that ‘unlock’ the the innate tendency of adults to care for them, e.g. laughing, crying, etc.
• C; critical period; babies must form an attachment within this period of 9 months - 3 years for healthy psychological development, or else it’ll lead to long-term consequences
• M; monotropy; infants only form one intense, main attachment with their initial attachment figure, (normally the mother)
• I; internal working model; a schema which all future relationships will be based on, and it’s formed through the monotropic attachment
• CH; continuity hypothesis; the idea that attachments in infancy will impact later relationships, i.e. securely attached children tend to have more stable relationships

Question 25

internal working model

Answer 25

• bowlby’s theory says that an infant’s monotropic (primary) attachment forms a template for all relationships that follow
• this is the internal working model, which is a cognitive framework through which the individual understands themself and their expectations for relationships with others
• it creates some consistency between the emotional experiences of early life and that of later relationships

Question 26

bowlby’s monotropic theory - strengths

Answer 26

• a highly influential explanation which is considered the most dominant one
• supported by Lorenz’s gosling study as it links to imprinting in animals, but the critical period is extended in humans
• biological evidence for a critical period, e.g. a foetus needs to have developed limbs by day 28, so there may be psychological ones too
• support for the continuity hypothesis, as Sroufe et al. (2005) found that the most securely attached in infancy were rated highest for social competence, popularity, and empathy
• support for monotropy (and universality) as Ainsworth (1967) found that infants in her Uganda study also attached to one main figure

Question 27

bowlby’s monotropic theory - limitations

Answer 27

• the critical period was found to be too strict, and is now seen as an ideal, where children can still attach later, i.e. Rutter (1998) found that children in his Romanian orphanage study were able to attach at ages well above 3, so the term ‘critical period’ was changed to ‘sensitive period’
• puts too much emphasis on monotropy, when research has suggested that a range of attachments can assist better with development and protection of the infant, e.g. Schaffer’s stages of attachment show that most babies develop multiple attachments after 10 months, rather than just one monotropic attachment
• supports the sex-role stereotype that women should be the main parent to look after children, but research suggests that fathers can fulfil this role instead

Question 28

ainsworth’s strange situation

Answer 28

• a lab observation designed to measure the quality and difference in attachment styles in infants
• Ainsworth and Bell (1970) developed the ‘strange situation’ for this, where they exposed around 100 infants to 8 ‘episodes’ to observe stranger anxiety, separation anxiety, the infant’s reunion behaviour towards the mother, and the infant’s exploration behaviour
• a standardised room was used containing chairs, toys and a one-way mirror (so psychologists could film and observe without being seen), and it was always in the exact same layout
• method;
• observer takes the mother and infant to the playroom then leaves
• the mother allows the infant to explore the room with her present (mother as secure basis)
• the stranger enters the room and talks to the mother then approaches the infant (stranger anxiety)
• the mother leaves the room and the stranger interacts with the infant (separation and stranger anxiety)
• the stranger leaves and the mother returns and interacts with the infant for a while (reunion behaviour)
• the mother leaves and the infant is left alone (separation anxiety)
• the stranger returns and interacts with the infant again (stranger anxiety)
• the mother returns and comforts the infant, and the stranger leaves (reunion behaviour)
• episodes were cut short if the infant became very upset, and were extended if they needed more time to calm down and return to play
• results;
• ainsworth had 3 classifications for the infants she observed; 70% were type B secure; 15% were type A insecure avoidant, and 15% were type C insecure resistant

Question 29

the caregiver sensitivity hypothesis

Answer 29

• ainsworth’s conclusion that the mother’s behaviour towards her infant will predict their attachment type

Question 30

ainsworth’s strange situation - strengths

Answer 30

• high internal validity due to it being a clearly defined procedure with operationalised variables, so it’s also highly replicable
• high inter-rater reliability as more than one observer was used and the experiment was filmed
• independent observers came to the same classifications of attachment as the original observers in Water’s (1978) study
• it isn’t unethical as it’s similar to daily experiences, such as infants being left at pre-school

Question 31

ainsworth’s strange situation - limitation types

Answer 31

• low population validity as it was a small sample of only middle-class americans, so results can’t be generalised
• lacks ecological validity as it doesn’t represent tasks completed by infants and caregivers in real life, and it was conducted in a lab which is unlike real life interactions - this unnatural environment may have impacted the results too
• some may see it as unethical as it deliberately causes stress to infants
• only looks at mother-child relationships, so can’t be generalised to other relationships, e.g. father-child ones
• culturally biased and ethnocentric as the study was based on and judged according to US standards, which may not be applicable to other cultures where child-rearing practices are different, e.g. Japan

Question 32

types of attachment

Answer 32

• secure
• insecure-avoidant
• insecure-resistant

Question 33

secure attachments

Answer 33

• most common type identified in the strange situation, with 70% of infants classified as secure
• infants were happy to explore the room using the mother as a safe base
• infant demonstrated separation anxiety
• infant showed stranger anxiety when the mum left
• infant becomes calm and happy once reunited with the mother

Question 34

insecure-avoidant attachments

Answer 34

• around 15% of infants were classified as this
• infants were happy to explore the room but didn’t refer to the mother as they did this
• there was no separation or stranger anxiety, as the infant continued playing as normal when the mother left or when left alone with the stranger
• the infant is indifferent when the mother returned

Question 35

insecure-resistant attachments

Answer 35

• around 15% of infants were classified as this
• infants were much less likely to explore the room and didn’t want to leave their mother’s side
• infant showed separation anxiety as they were distressed when the mother left
• infant showed stranger anxiety, as they avoided the stranger even when the mother was present
• infant seeks the mother upon return, but resists direct contact and protests, e.g. by pushing her away

Question 36

attachment types - evaluation

Answer 36

+ strong evidence for the impact which attachment types have on later relationships, e.g. bowlby’s continuity hypothesis
- too reductionist to assume the entire population fits into one of three attachment styles
- Main et al. (1986) found a 4th type known as type D; disorganised, and these infants were found to have suffered some form of abuse in early infancy - shows that ainsworth’s study was missing issues

Question 37

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg - cultural variations in attachment

Answer 37

• Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of strange situation experiments that other researchers had conducted across the world, with the aim of determining whether attachment styles are universal across cultures or whether cultural conditions affect attachment styles
• they took 32 studies from 8 countries to gain an idea of attachment types in other cultures
• results;
• secure attachment is the most commonly found attachment type in all countries
• insecure avoidant is the second most common attachment type in Western / industrialised / individualistic societies
• insecure-resistant is the second most common attachment type in non-Western / non-industrialised / collective societies
• there’s more diversity within a culture, than between cultures

Question 38

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg - strengths

Answer 38

• quicker and cheaper method than alternatives, as data is readily available
• meta-analysis allows researchers to obtain data from countries where language and cultural barriers may have been an issue, e.g. Japan
• reliable as it can be easily replicated
• representative and can be generalisable, as the research has a large sample from a variety of places

Question 39

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg - limitations

Answer 39

• hard to check the validity of some studies, as the researchers can’t check if the data was collected in a scientific manner
• many countries, and continents, are missing, e.g. Africa, so we may not be able to really generalise to all cultures
• imbalance of studies used, e.g. the Chinese study only had 25 infants, whereas there were so many for the US
• Takahashi found that Japanese infants were often seen as insecure-resistant as they were rarely left by their primary caregiver, so the strange situation was terrifying for them

Question 40

bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

Answer 40

• explains what happens when an attachment is broken between an infant and their primary caregiver (mother)
• an attachment may be broken through separation, deprivation, or privation

Question 41

separation

Answer 41

• when infants are separated from their mothers for a short-term
• e.g. being left at pre-school
• bowlby said this may lead to;
• protests; outward expressions, e.g. crying, kicking, etc.
• despair; inward expressions, e.g. sulking, sucking thumb for comfort, etc.
• detachment; the infant will interact with people again, but may initially reject the mother when she returns due to anger

Question 42

deprivation

Answer 42

• when infants are separated from their primary caregiver during the critical period for a long time, or permanently, e.g. if the mother dies
• this can permanently damage the infant’s psychological development
• e.g. bowlby said it can lead to;
• delayed social development; misbehaviour
• delayed intellectual development; low cognitive functions and a low IQ
• delayed emotional development; affectionless psychopathology; children who had maternal deprivation couldn’t experience guilt or strong emotions
• aggression, social maladjustment, depression, etc.

Question 43

privation

Answer 43

• when the infant never had a primary caregiver to begin with, so they don’t even get close to forming an attachment

Question 44

bowlby’s study of maternal deprivation

Answer 44

• bowlby conducted a study to examine the links between maternal deprivation and affectionless psychopathology
• hypothesis; if an attachment is disrupted / during the critical period, then the child may never form any attachments and psychological damage is inevitable past this point
• method;
• he interviewed 44 teenage ppts, who’d been accused of stealing, for signs of affectionless psychopathology (e.g. lack of guilt or empathy, etc.)
• researchers interviewed the ppt’s families to see if there was prolonged early separation from their mothers / mother figure
• there was a control group of 44 non-criminals with emotional problems, to see how maternal deprivation affected the children who weren’t thieves
• results;
• 14 of the thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths
• 12/14 had been affected by maternal deprivation in the first 2 years of their lives
• only 2 in the non-criminal group were subjected to prolonged separation
• none of the control group were diagnosed as affectionless psychopaths
• this suggests that affectionless psychopathology and thieving behaviour are linked to the periods of separation experienced from their mother / mother figure in early life

Question 45

bowlby’s study of maternal deprivation - strengths

Answer 45

• supported by Goldfarb (1943), who found that children raised in orphanages, i.e. without mothers, for the first 3 years of life suffered intellectually and socially in later life
• his research led to policy changes around institutions and how they treated children, i.e. improving child welfare
• children in hospitals were allowed to have their primary caregiver stay with them, whereas before they were only allowed during visiting hours

Question 46

bowlby’s study of maternal deprivation - limitations

Answer 46

• Goldfarb’s research may be a correlation not a cause, i.e. poor orphanage conditions may have caused poor development in children rather than the maternal deprivation hypothesis
• researcher bias as bowlby himself carried out the interviews so his own ideas may have influenced the questions he asked and his interpretations of the answers
• Rutter’s romanian orphanage study suggests effects of maternal deprivation are largely reversible, which disproves bowlby’s hypothesis that the effects are permanent
• bowlby confuses early experiences of deprivation and privation, which is more likely to cause the severe damage that bowlby suggests

Question 47

institutionalisation

Answer 47

• being placed in residential institutions, such as orphanages or children’s homes
• privation may occur when infants are raised in such institutions

Question 48

effects of institutionalisation

Answer 48

• refers to the effects of growing up in institutions like orphanages / children’s homes
• these may include;
• delayed language development
• delayed mental development / low IQ
• disinhibited attachment (when children show equal affection to strangers as they do to people they know well)
• delayed physical development, e.g. reduced growth
• delinquency (minor crimes committed by youths)
• difficulties forming relationships in adulthood

Question 49

romanian orphan studies

Answer 49

• conditions in romania during the 1990s were difficult and many parents couldn’t afford to keep their children, so they ended up in large orphanages in poor conditions, as they suffered from minimal contact with adults and poor nutrition
• Rutter et al. (1998) studied romanian orphans and found that the sooner the children were adopted, the faster their developmental progress
• in his subsequent research, Rutter (2007) studied romanian orphans who had been adopted by British families

Question 50

Rutter et al. (2007) - romanian orphan studies

Answer 50

• aim; to see whether the effects of such extreme privation in early life could be overcome with love and care
• method;
• used 111 children who’d been placed in romanian orphanages before 2 weeks of age, and then adopted by british families
• children were split into 3 groups; children adopted before 6 months, children adopted between 6 months and 2 years of age, and children adopted after 2 years of age
• there was a control group of 52 british children adopted into british families
• it was a longitudinal study as it measured the physical and cognitive development of infants at ages 4, 6, and 11
• at the beginning of the observations, over half the romanian children suffered from severe malnutrition and a low IQ, showing delayed intellectual development compared to the control group
• results;
• by age 4, orphans adopted before 6 months had caught up with the british orphan control group in terms of emotional development
• by age 4, orphans adopted after 6 months had made physical and cognitive progress but hadn’t fully caught up with the control group as they showed disinhibited attachment
• at age 6, the developmental improvements were maintained but hadn’t improved
• at age 11, 50% of children who’d displayed disinhibited attachments early on were still doing so
• this suggests institutionalisation can be largely reversed if the infant is shown love and care, but the longer they go without forming an attachment, the more likely they are to suffer permanent psychological damage

Question 51

romanian orphan studies - strengths

Answer 51

• policy changes based on this research were made to benefit children, e.g. children’s homes now avoid numerous caregivers for each children, and instead have 1/2 ‘key workers’ who play a central role
• higher internal validity due to a lack of confounding variables and it was easier to study cause and effect, as the romanian orphans had been handed over due to their parents not being able to afford them, rather than because of many different reasons, such as neglect or abuse, which usually makes this harder in adoption studies
• more recent neurological evidence from Chugani (2001) supports the damaging effects that privation can have on specific brain structures
• supported by Hodges and Tizard (1989) who found that adopted children who experienced privation were less successful in peer relationships compared to a control group

Question 52

romanian orphan studies - limitations

Answer 52

• long-term effects aren’t clear as he places too much focus on short-term recovery, e.g. just because a child doesn’t exhibit normal development at age 4, it doesn’t mean this won’t improve at a later point in life, so it would’ve been better to carry out the study across a longer time scale
• low ecological validity as the conditions of the romanian orphanages were extremely poor and weren’t typical of other orphanages, suggesting the results can’t be generalised beyond the environment they were found in

Question 53

the influence of early attachment

Answer 53

• bowlby’s internal working model (attachment with primary caregiver provides a schema/template for future relationships forms the basis of the continuity hypothesis (future relationships will follow the pattern of early ones)

Question 54

effects of early attachment types

Answer 54

• type a; insecure-avoidant;
• caused by PCG’s unresponsiveness to the infant’s needs, so they learnt not to seek attention as it doesn’t work
• in the future, they try to hide their emotions and fear rejection, so can be uninvolved in their relationships, making it hard to form secure attachments
• type b; secure;
• caused by a responsive PCG as the infant is secure that they’re loved
• tend to have stable relationships as they seek out functional relationships, like their early ones, and they’re secure in themselves
• type c; insecure-resistant;
• caused by their PCG giving mixed responses, so the infant doesn’t know what to expect and acts in a clingy manner to ensure they get as much love and won’t be rejected
• they’ll look for signs of rejection and will cling onto the other person to prevent this, but this will ultimately make it more likely that the relationship will end as they’ll seem controlling and argumentative

Question 55

influence of early attachment on childhood relationships

Answer 55

• research suggests that early infant attachments affect friendships in childhood
• e.g. Youngblake and Belsky (1992) conducted a longitudinal study of 73 children and found that those who’d displayed secure attachment styles at the age of 1 were more likely to have close friendships and get along well with other children by ages 3-5
• Laible et al. (2000) found that teenagers who scored highly for parent attachment were also more likely to score highly for peer attachment too

Question 56

influence of early attachment on adult relationships

Answer 56

• the continuity with infant attachments extends into adulthood too, with it being correlated with romantic attachments and parenting styles
• Hazen and Shaver (1987) conducted a ‘love quiz’ study;
• they asked ppts to respond to a newspaper questionnaire that asked them to say which of 3 statements best applied to their feelings on romantic relationships
• each of the 3 statements would correspond to one of ainsworth’s attachment styles
• ppts also completed a checklist on childhood relationships, with answers again corresponding to the attachment styles
• they found correlations between adult relationships and attachment types;
  > secure attached adults tended to have long-lasting relationships and low divorce rates
  > both insecure attachment styles were more likely to report loneliness
  > adults who had insecure-avoidant attachment styles tended to believe that love is rare and felt that they didn’t need romantic partners to be happy
• several studies, such as Bailey et al. (2007) have found that attachment styles in infancy are correlated with parenting styles in adulthood

Question 57

the influence of early attachment - strengths

Answer 57

• supporting evidence from all studies above
• practical applications of the internal working model, i.e. understanding why a child or adult may be struggling due to their attachment type allows those working with them to support them better - this can help those with insecure attachments to reach relationship stability as they grow older

Question 58

the influence of early attachment - limitations

Answer 58

• self report techniques were used, e.g. in Hazen and Shaver’s study, which can be less valid as ppts may under or over-exaggerate
• there may be bias in the type of ppts who reply to adverts in newspapers, e.g. they may have recently had a relationship end and wanted to vent
• difficult to establish a cause, as it may just be a correlation
• there may be an alternative explanation, e.g. Kagan and Snidman (2004) instead argue for the temperament hypothesis; the idea that humans have innate personality traits and these influence both infant and adult relationship styles, rather than a learned internal working model as proposed by bowlby