Attachment Flashcards
1
Q
Attachment
A
Emotional bond between an infant & their caregiver.
A 2 way bond in which an individual sees the other as essential for their emotional security & development.
2
Q
Infant attachment style
A
Baby has a need, baby cries, need is met by the caregiver - trust develops.
(To form a healthy attachment, needs must consistently be met & an unhealthy attachment forms when needs are met inconsistently or not at all).
Different responses of caregiver leads to different attachment styles.
3
Q
How can we see attachment?
A
- Proximity: staying close to those they’re attached to.
- Separation distress: distress when attachment figures leaves their presence.
- Secure base: make regular contact (even if independent) ie. Infants return to attachment figures while playing.
- Reunion behaviours: for babies, they’re happy to see primary caregivers after separation.
4
Q
Caregiver - infant Interactions: Reciprocity
A
Reciprocity: interaction is a 2 way process & each party responds to the other’s signals to sustain interaction (turn-taking).
Behaviours illicit response ie. Smile at baby, baby smiles back.
5
Q
Reciprocity: Alert phrases
A
-Babies have periods of alert phrases & signals to primary caregiver that signal to the primary caregiver that they are ready for interaction.
-Feldman & Eaelmann (2007) found mothers pick up on these signals 2/3 of the time.
-From around 3 months, interactions become increasingly frequent & involved close attention to each others verbal signals & facial expressions.
-Interaction is reciprocal when the respond.
6
Q
Reciprocity: Active involvement (Brazelton et al 1975)
A
Traditional views of childhood portrayed babies in a passive role, receiving care from an adult.
-However sometimes babies can also take an active role.
-Brazelton et al (1975) described this interaction as a ‘dance’ because it is just like a couples dance where each partner responds to the others moves.
7
Q
Caregiver - infant Interactions: Interactional synchrony
A
-Can be defined as the ‘temporal co-ordination of micro level social behaviour’ (Feldman 2007).
-Takes place when caregiver & baby interact in a way that their actions & emotions mimic each other.
8
Q
International synchrony: Synchrony begins - Meltzoff & Moore (1977)
A
Observed beginning of this in babies as young as 2 weeks old.
Adult displayed 3 facial expressions & 1 manual gesture.
The baby’s response was observed & recorded.
An independent observer who didn’t know what the infant saw was asked to note instances of tongue profusion & head movements with behavioural categories.
Each observed scored tapes twice (insta & inter reliability).
Found that babies (12-27 days) can imitate expressions & gestures.
9
Q
Interactional synchrony: Importance for attachment - Isabella et al (1989)
A
-Observed 30 mothers & babies together & assesssed the degree of synchrony.
-She also assessed the quality of mother-baby attachment.
-Found that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-baby attachment (ie. Emotional intensity of relationship).
10
Q
Support for Caregiver-infant interactions: Evans & Porter (2009)
A
Studied reciprocity, interactional synchrony & attachment quality.
-101 infants & mothers for first year after birth.
-all were invited to lab at 6,9,12 months & baby pairs provided toys and instructed to play for 15 mins.
-they were videoed & assessed on extent of reciprocity & degree of interactional synchrony.
-at 12 months, the attachment was assessed using the Strange Situation test.
Babies judged as most securely attached were those who had most reciprocity & the most interactional synchrony.
11
Q
Strength of Caregiver-infant Interactions: Filmed observations
A
Usually filmed in a lab.
-means that other activities thta could distract a baby are controlled.
-films can be analysed later & researchers won’t miss key details.
-more than 1 observer can record data & establish inter-rater reliability.
-babies don’t know they are being observed so their behaviour doesn’t change (no demand characteristics).
Improves reliability & validity.
12
Q
Limitation of Caregiver-infant Interactions: Difficulty observing babies
A
Hard to interpret a baby’s behaviour.
-young babies lack coordination & much of their bodies are almost immobile so movements and changes in expression are subtle.
-difficulty to determine what’s taking place from the babies perspective.
-E.g. can’t know if a hand twitch is random or triggered.
Means we cannot be certain that behaviours have a special meaning.
13
Q
Limitation of Caregiver-infant Interactions: Developmental Importances (Feldman 2012)
A
Simply observing a behaviour does not tell us it’s importance.
-pouts out that ideas like synchrony simply give names to patterns of observable behaviour.
-they are robust phenomena in the sense that they can be reliably observed but may not be useful in understanding child development & doesn’t say the purpose.
Counter: evidence that early interactions are important. Isabella et al (1989) found that achievement of IS predicted the development of food quality attachment.
Shows importance in development.
14
Q
Evaluation of Caregiver-infant Interactions: Practical vs Ethics (Crotwell et al 2013)
A
Research has practical applications in parenting skills training.
E.g. Crotwell found that a 10 minute parent chukd interaction therapy (PCIT) improved IS in 20 low income mothers & their pre-school children.
On the other hand, research into this is socially sensitive since it argues that when a mother returns to work soon after a baby, it risks damaging their development.
15
Q
The role of the father
A
‘Father’ refers to the baby’s closest male caregiver.
16
Q
The role of the father: Attachment to fathers: Schaffer & Emerson (1964)
A
Evidence shows that mothers are likelier to be the baby’s first attachment figure.
-They going that majority of babues become attached to mother at 7 months.
-Only 3% of the time, father was first attachment figure.
-27% of the cases, father was the joint first attachment figure with mother.
-75% of infants become attached to father by 18 months. (Protested when father walked away).
17
Q
The role of the father: Distinctive role (Grossman et al 2002)
A
Wanted to see if caregiving men make contribution to early development.
-Grossman carried out a longitudinal study where babies attachment was studied until they were in their teens.
-Found that the quality of fathers’ play with babies was related to quality of adolescent attachments.
Suggests fathers have a more play & stimulation role & mothers have a more emotional development role.
18
Q
The role of the father: Fathers as primary attachment figures (Field 1978)
A
A baby’s relationship with their primary figure forms a basis of all later emotional relationships.
-When fathers are primary care givers, they have a more emotional role like mothers.
-Field filmed 4 month old babies face to face interactions with primary mothers, secondary fathers & primary fathers, secondary mothers.
-With primary fathers, they spent more time smiling, imitating & holding child (interaction synchrony & reciprocity) than secondary fathers.
Fathers have the potential to be more emotion focussed & can pricier responsiveness but only when they’re the primary caregiver.
19
Q
Limitation of The role of the father: Confusion over research questions
A
Lack of clarity over the question being asked.
-“what is the role of the father?” is too broad & can be interpreted in different ways (primary/secondary)
-the former have found fathers behave diff than mothers & have a distinct role.
-the latter found that fathers CAN take on a maternal role.
Makes it difficult to simply answer the role of the father & is dependant on specific roles.
20
Q
Limitation of The role of the father: Conflicting evidence (McCallum & Golombok 2004)
A
Findings vary according to method used.
-Grossman in longitudinal studies, found secondary fathers gave a role in play and stimulation.
-Howveer, if fathers had such a distinct role, we would expect single mother/lesbian families children to turn out differently.
-M & G’s study shows they don’t develop differently than heterosexual 2 parent families.
Means question to if fathers have a distinctive role is unanswered.
Counter: could be that mothers in single parent & same sex families simply adapt to the distinctive role a father should play & accommodate it.
Means that question of distinctive role can be answered.
21
Q
Strength of The role of the father: Real-world application
A
Can be used to offer advice to parents:
-parents sometimes agonise over who should have the primary role.
or even to have children.
-fathers have longer paternity leave (9 months-1 year).
-mothers may feel pressured to stay at home because of the stereotypical view of them & fathers may feel pressured to focus on work.
-research offers reassuring advice to parents.
E.g. parents can be informed fathers CAN be primary attachment figures & lesbian/single families can be assured that a father not being around doesn’t affect child’s development.
Means parental anxiety about role of fathers can be reduced.
22
Q
Limitation of The role of the father: Biased research
A
-Preconceptions of how a father should behave can be created by stereotypical accounts & images of parenting roles.
-Stereotypes may cause unintentional observer bias where observed ‘see’ what they expect rather than objective reality.
23
Q
Limitation of The role of the father: Socially sensitive
A
This research could negatively impact somebody.
-in the case that they do not have a father, or absent father.
-fathers may be demotivated.
-places pressure on mother to be the primary caregiver.
24
Q
Schaffer’s stages of Attachment: Schaffer & Emerson’s study (1964) - Procedure
A
Observational study of formation of early infant-adult attachment.
Procedure:
-60 babies from W/C Glasgow families.
-researchers visited monthly for first year & again at 18 motnhs.
-asked mother questions about the protest babies showed in 7 everyday separations (adult leaving room, left in pr outside house/shops, left with people, left in cot at night, put down after held, passed by when sitting).
This was used to measure separation anxiety.
-Stranger anxiety measured from every visit the researcher approached infant & noted when the infant started to whimper.
-Data came from direct observation go chu for en from mothers keeping diaries & interviews.
25
Schaffer’s stages of Attachment: Schaffer & Emerson’s study (1964) - Findings
-50% showed 1st attachment between 6-8 months.
-Attachement tended to be with the person who responded & was sensitive to infants signals rather than who spent most time with the infant.
-By 10 months, 50% had more than 1 attachment & by 18 months, figure rose to 87%.
-By 10 months, 30% had multiple attachments.
26
Evaluation of Schaffer & Emerson’s study
-Good external validity
(Research carried out in homes doing ordinary activities so unlikely infants behaviour was affected, but issue with relying on parents biased data).
-Longitudinal design
(Same children observed to establish patterns).
(Greater internal validity than cross sectional designs - no ppt variables).
-Limited sample
(Research is over 50 years old so generalisability today is unsuccessful due to development of child rearing).
(All ppts were W/C & from the same city so results are not generalisable to cultures & classes)
27
Schaffer’s stages of Attachment: Asocial stage
-In the baby’s first few weeks, observable behaviour towards humans & inanimate objects is similar zx
-However they do show preferences with certain people & want to be comforted by certain people.
Baby is forming bonds.
28
Schaffer’s stages of Attachment: Indiscriminate attachment
-2-7 month old babies, show more obvious signs that they prefer humans over inanimate objects.
-Also recognise & prefer company of certain people.
-However, they accept cuddles & comfort from anyone & do not show anxiety in presence of unfamiliar people.
29
Schaffer’s stages of Attachment: Specific attachment
-From 7 months, babies display classic signs of attachment towards a particular person.
-Includes separation & stranger anxiety.
-Baby has formed a specific attachment **primary attachment figure**.
-This is who offers most interaction & responds to baby’s signals the best.
In 65% of cases, this is the mother.
30
Schaffer’s stages of Attachment: Multiple attachments
-Shortly after baby forms first attachment, they form multiple (with whom they spend time with).
-These are called **secondary attachments**.
-29% of children form secondary ones within a month of forming a primary.
By the age of 1, the majority of babies have developed multiple attachments.
31
Strength of Schaffer’s stages of Attachment: Good external validity
Good external validity.
-most observations made by parents were reported to researchers.
-alternative would’ve been to have redearcher present to record observations.
-may have made babies anxious or distracted.
Highly likely behaviour was **naturalistic**.
Counter: issues of **subjectivity** with mothers recording observations.
-may have been biased in what they noticed & reported (might not have noticed when baby showed signs of anxiety or misremembered it.
Means even if babies behaved naturally, their behaviour may not have been accurately recorded.
32
Limitation of Schaffer stages of Attachment: Poor evidence (asocial stage)
Low validity of measured used to assess attachment in asocial stage.
-young babies have poor co-ordination & are fairly immobile.
-if babies below 2 months felt anxiety; this would’ve been subtle & displayed in hard to observe ways.
-difficult for mothers to observe & report back the signs.
Means babies could be quiet social but because of flawed methods, they appear asocial.
33
Strength of Schaffer stages of Attachment: Real-world application
Practical application in daycare (babies cared for by a non-family adult).
-In asocial & indiscriminate stages, daycare might be straightforward since babies can be comforted by any skilled adult.
-But, S & E’s research tells us that starting daycare with an unfamiliar adult can be problematic in the ‘specific attachment’ stage.
Means that parents’ use of day care can be planned with S & E’s stages.
34
Evaluation of Schaffer stages of Attachment: Generalisability
They based their stage account on a large scale study with some good design features.
However, they only looked at a single, unique sample (historical context 1960s Glasgow W/C).
In other cultures, like **collectivist cultures**, multiple attachments from an early age are the norm - Ijzendoorn (1993).
35
Animal studies of attachment
Ethnologists conducted animal studies of the relationships between newborn animals & their mothers.
36
Animal studies: Lorenz (1952) - Imprinting
**Imprinting** refers to a critical period of time early in an animals life where it forms attachments with the first moving object it sees.
-Birds & mammals born with pre-programmed innate drive to imprint onto their mothers.
-Lorenz learnt when he was a child & neighbour gave him a newly hatched duckling that followed him around.
37
Animal studies: Lorenz (1952) - Experiment
Procedure:
-divide up goose eggs into 2 groups.
-1/2 the eggs hatched with mother goose in their natural environment.
-other 1/2 hatched in incubator where they first saw Lorenz.
Findings:
-incubator group followed Lorenz.
-control group followed mother.
Mixed:
-placed box over geese & grouped together.
-when he lifted box & walked away, his geese followed him & other group followed mother.
Conclusions:
-he found there was a **critical period** (few hours for geese) where if they don’t see a moving figure, they won’t form attachments later on.
38
Animal studies: Lorenz (1952) - Sexual imprinting
Investigated relationship with imprinting & adult mate preferences which would have a lifelong impact.
-peacock imprinted on a giant tortoise & directed courtship towards tortoises in adulthood.
Gosling imprinted on a human & wanted to mate with it.
Peacock had undergone **sexual imprinting**.
39
Strength of Lorenz’ research: Research support - Regolin & Vallortigara (1995)
Supports concept of imprinting:
-chicks exposed to shape combos that moved such as a triangle with a rectangle in front.
-range of convos moved in front of them but they followed the original closest.
Supports view that animals born with innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object present in critical window of development.
40
Limitation of Lorenz’s research: Generalisability to humans
May not generalise findings from birds to humans:
-mammalian attachment system is different & more complete than birds
E.g. in mammals, attachment is a 2 way process so it’s not just the young who become attached but also mothers who attach to young.
Means may not be appropriate to generalise his ideas to humans.
41
Limitation of Lorenz’ research: Reliability - Gulton et al (1966)
Impact of imprinting behaviour is not as permanent as Lorenz suggested.
-Chickens that imprinted on yellow gloves did try to mate with the glove & eventually started to mate with other chickens.
42
Animal studies of attachment: Harlow’s research (1958)
Harlow worked with rhesus monkeys which are more similar to humans than Lorenz’ birds.
43
Harlow’s research: The importance of contact comfort
He observed that newborns kept alone in a cage often sidled by they usually survived if given something soft like a cloth to cuddle.
44
Harlow’s research: Study
Procedure:
-tested idea that soft subject serves some of the functions of another.
-he reared 16 baby monkeys with 2 wire model mothers.
-in condition 1, milk dispensed by plain wire mum & in condition 2, milk was dispensed by the cloth covered mother.
Findings:
-baby monkeys cuddled cloth kother & aought comfort from cloth one when frightened (noisy mechanical bear) regardless of which mukndispensed the milk.
Showed that **contact comfort** was of more importance to monkeys than food, when it came to attachment.
45
Harlow’s research: Maternally deprived monkeys as adults
Wanted to see if they’d go through **maternal deprivation**.
-monkeys reared with plain wire mothered were the most dysfunctional.
-however, even those with the cloth mother didn’t develop normal social behaviour.
-deprived monkeys were more aggressive, less social able & bred less than others, becoming unskilled at mating.
-when they became mothers, some of the deprived neglected their young & some even killed them.
46
Harlow’s research: The critical period for normal development
-a mother had to be introduced to a young monkey within 90 days for an attachment to form.
-after this time, attachment was impossible & the damage done by early deprivation became irreversible.
47
Strength of Harlow’s research: Real-world applications (Howe 1998)
-Helped social workers & clinical psychologists understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in child’s development allowing them to intervene to prevent poor outcomes.
-Understand the importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos & breeding programmes in the wild.
Means that the value of his research is both theoretical & practical.
48
Limitation of Harlow’s research: Ethical issues
-Monkeys suffered greatly due to his procedures & some died.
-Presumably, if humans are similar to monkeys, their pain was also human like.
-Caused long term severe distress.
-Harlow was aware his research was harmful & he called the wire mum an ‘iron maiden’ (medieval torture device).
49
Limitation of Harlow’s research: Generalisability to humans
Might not be able to generalise conclusions from monkeys to humans.
-Rhesus monkeys are more similar to humans than Lorenz’ birds & all mammals share common attachemnt behaviours.
-However human brain is more complex.
Means it may not be appropriate to generalise his findings to humans.
50
Explanations of attachment: Learning theory - Dollard & Miller (1950)
Proposed that caregiver-infant attachment can be explained with learning theory.
Their approach is sometimes called ‘cupboard love’ approach because it emphasises importance of the attachment figure as a provider of food.
They use classical & operant conditioning to explain this.
51
Learning theory & attachment: Classical conditioning
-Food is an **unconditioned stimulus** & being fed gives us pleasure which is the **unconditioned response**.
-A caregiver begins as a **neutral stimulus** producing no response.
-Overtime, caregiver feeds and becomes associated with being fed so the cater becomes a **conditioned stimulus** evoking pleasure which is the conditioned response.
This is how attachment develops (love).
52
Learning theory & attachment: Operant conditioning
-If a behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, it’s likely to be repeated - **reinforced**.
-If behaviour produces unpleasant consequences (punishment), it’s less likely to be repeated.
-Crying leads to a response from the caregiver (feeding) & if the caregiver provides the correct response, crying is reinforced.
-Baby directs crying for comfort towards caregiver who response with comforting **social suppressor** behaviour.
-As the baby is reinforced for crying, the caregiver receives **negative reinforcement** because the crying stops (escaping from something unpleasant is reinforcing).
-Baby smiling is a **positive reinforcer**.
Mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment.
53
Learning theory & attachment: Attachment as a secondary drive - Sears et al (1957)
Draws on concept of **drive reduction**.
-Hunger can be thought of as a **primary drive** (innate, biological motivator) motivated to eat to reduce hunger drive.
-Sears suggested that as caregivers provide good, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them.
-Attachment is thus a **secondary drive** learned by association between caregiver & satisfaction of a primary drive.
54
Limitation of learning theory: Counter evidence from animal studies (Lorenz & Harlow)
Lack of support.
-Lorenz’ geese imprinted on the first loving object regardless of if the object was associated with food.
-Harlow’s research displayed attachment behaviour towards a soft surrogate ‘mother’ in preference to a wire one providing milk.
Shows that factors other than association with food are important during formation of attachments.
55
Limitation of learning theory: Counter evidence from human studies (Schaffer & Emerson)
Lack of support.
-Schaffer & Emerson found that babies tended to form their main attachment to their mothers regardless if she usually fed them.
-Isabella et al found that high levels of Interactional synchrony predicts the quality of attachment.
These factors are not related to feeding. This suggests that food is not the main factor in the formation of human attachments.
56
Strength of learning theory: Some conditioning may be involved
Elements of conditioning may be involved in attachment formation.
-A baby might associate feeling warm and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult & this may influence baby’s choice of main attachment figure.
Means that learning theory is still useful in understanding development of attachment.
Counter: Learning theory explanations see the baby playing a passive role in attachment developemntF simply responding to associations with comfort or reward.
-But research shows babies play an active role in interactions for attachment (Feldman & Eidelman).
Means conditioning may not be an adequate explanation of any aspect of attachment.
57
Evaluation of learning theory: Social learning theory (Hay & Vespo 1988)
Suggest parents teach children to love them by demonstrating/modelling attachment behaviours (hugging).
-They also reinforce loving behaviour by showing approval when babies display their own attachment behaviours (cuddles)
-Based around 2-way interaction so it fits better with research into the importance of reciprocity.
58
Explanations of attachment: Bowlby’s monotropic theory - Bowlby (1988)
Rejected learning theory & said “we’re it true, an infant of a year or two should take readily to whomever feeds him & this is not the case.”
-Looked at Lorenz & Harlow’s work & proposed an **evolutionary** explanation.
-Attachment was an **innate** system that gives a survival advantage & it evolved as a mechanism to keep young animals safe by ensuring they stay close to adult caregivers.
59
Bowlby: monotropic theory: Innate system
-Babies have **social releasers** to ensure they are cared for to survive.
-Babies born with a set of innate ‘cute’ behaviours like smiling, cooing, gripping & grabbing attention from adults.
-Attachment is a reciprocal process & both mother and child gave **innate predispositions** to become attached & social releasers trigger the response in caregivers.
60
Bowlby’s monotropic theory: Monotropy
Placed great emphasis on a child’s attachment to one particular caregiver.
-Beliveed this attachment is more important than others.
-Called this ‘the mother’ even though it might not refer to the real mother.
-Believed the more time a baby spent with this figure, the better.
61
Monotropy: 2 Laws (1975)
Law on continuity: the more consistent & predictable a child’s care is, the stronger the attachment.
Law of accumulated separation: the effects of everyday separation add up to the “safest does of separation which is 0.”
62
Bowlby’s monotropic theory: Critical period
The interplay between baby & adult attachment systems gradually builds the relationship between babies and caregivers.
-The critical period is around 6 months when the infant attachemnt system is active.
-He viewed this as a **sensitive period**.
-6 months- 2.5 years.
-If attachment isn’t formed at this time, child will find it harder to for one later.
63
Bowlby’s monotropic theory: Internal working model
-Proposed a child forms a mental representation (schema) of their relationship with their primary attachment figure. This serves a model for what future relationships are like.
-A child whose first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver are likely to bring these qualities to future relationships.
-If a child is from a dysfunctional family, they will tend to form poorer relationships where they expect that treatment & treat others that way.
-Also affects child’s latee ability to be a parent themselves as they base their parenting behaviour on own experiences of being parented.
-Explains why children from functional families have similar families.
64
Limitation of Monotropy: Validity challenged (Schaffer & Emerson)
His concept of monotropy lacks **validity**.
-Found that though most babies did attach to one person at first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time.
-Though the first attachment has a strong influence on later behaviour, this may simply mean it’s *stronger*, not *different* in terms of quality from child’s other attachment.
Means that Bowlby may be incorrect that there’s a unique quality to child’s primary attachment.
65
Strength for Social releasers: Brazelton et al (1975)
Strength is evidence supporting.
-Clear evidence that cute babies are designed to elicit interaction from caregivers.
-Observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers.
-Researchers instructed primary attachment figures to ignore their child’s social releasers.
-Babies became distressed and curled up & lay motionless.
Illustrated role of social releasers in emotional development.
66
Strength of Internal working model: Bailey et al (2007)
Support for Internal WM.
-Predicts patterns of attachment will be passed from one gen to the next.
-Assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers & their 1 year old babies.
-Measured attachment of mothers to their own primary figures.
-Assessed quality of attachemnt of the babies.
-Found that women with poor attachment to their own figures had poorly attached babies.
Supports Bowlby’s idea that mothers’ ability to form attachment is influenced by their internal WM’s.
Counter: other influences on social development. E.g. some psychologists believe that genetic differences in anxiety & sociability affect social behaviour in babies & adults. These differences can impact parenting ability. - **Kornienko 2016**.
Means Bowlby may have overstated importance of internal WM in social behaviour and parenting.
67
Evaluation of Bowlby’s theory: Feminist incense
The law of continuity & accumulated separation suggests mothers who work negatively affect their child’s emotional development.
-Points out this belief sets up mothers to take the blame for everything going wrong with child in future.
-Restricts mothers’ activities
Many custody disputes settled in favour of the father since mother’s were not regarded as necessary.
Real-world applications, such as key workers in day care who build an attachment with particular babies.
68
Strength of Bowlby’s theory: Harlow & Harlow
Rhesus monkeys attached to a comforting caregiver, suggesting sensitive responsiveness underlies attachment.
-Emphasises importance of a close relationship compared to learning theory which focussed on stimulus response.
-The reason these monkeys neglected offspring was because they didn’t experience a proper caregiver & developed faulty internal WM.
69
Ainsworth’s strange situation (1970)
Developed by Ainsworth & Bell (1970).
-used to assess quality of attachment to a caregiver.
-consisted of a series of structured situations in a specific order.
-controlled observation set in lab with a 2 way mirror to observe child & mother in 7 different scenarios.
70
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: Behaviours observed
-Proximity seeking (a baby with good quality attachment will stay close to caregiver)
-Secure base behaviour/exploring (good attachment allows baby to feel comfortable exploring)
-Separation anxiety (protest at separation)
-Stranger anxiety (display of anxiety when stranger approaches)
-Response to reunion (greet caregivers return with pleasure & feel comfort).
71
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: What happens?
1. Baby encouraged to explore (exploration/secure base).
2. Stranger enters & talks to caregiver & approaches baby (stranger anxiety).
3. Caregiver leaves stager and baby (separation & stranger anxiety).
4. Caregiver returns & stranger leaves (Reunion behaviour & exploration/secure base).
5. Caregiver leaves baby alone (separation anxiety).
6. Stranger returns (stranger anxiety).
7. Caregiver returns & reunited with baby (reunion behaviour).
72
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: Findings (3 attachment styles) 1978
-Type A - **anxious/insecure avoidant**
-Type B - **secure attachment** (balance)
-Type C - **anxious/insecure resistant** (clingy)
Type D - disorganised (added later & used in evaluation).
73
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: Type A (anxious avoidant)
-parent was too busy & didn’t cater to kids needs.
-explore freely but do not seek proximity.
-show secure-base behaviour.
-little or no reaction when their caregiver leaves and no stranger anxiety.
-is not bothered when caregiver returns.
About 20-25% of British babies are classified as insecure-avoidant.
74
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: Type B (secure attachment)
-consistent parenting & child is trusting of parent.
-explores while keeping eye on mum.
-moderately upset when mum leaves.
-readily comforted when mum returns.
-a little wary of stranger.
About 60-75% of British babies are classified as secure.
75
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: Type C (anxious resistant)
-inconsistent attention, not trusting.
-can be jealous and hard to console.
-doesn’t explore much & stays close to mum.
-does not like stranger at all.
-cross with mum on return & not easily comforted.
-extremely upset when mum leaves.
Around 3% of British babies are classified as insecure-resistant.
76
Strength of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: Good predictive validity
It’s outcome predicts a number of aspects of the baby’s later development.
-research shows that children with Type B attachment have better childhood & adulthood.
-childhood - better achievement & less involvement in bullying (McCormick et al).
-adulthood- better mental health (Ward et al).
-babies assessed as Type C or none of them have the worst outcomes.
Suggests it is real & meaningful in development.
Counter: measures something, but might not be attachment. Kagan suggested that genetically-influenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment behaviour in the Strange Situation and later development.
This means that the Strange Situation may not actually measure attachment & may lack **face validity**.
77
Strength of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: Inter-observer reliability (Bick et al 2012)
**Inter-observer reliability** is extent to which 2 or more observers agree.
-trained observers achieved 94% agreement on judging attachment types in SS.
-could be because of controlled setting & because of large movements which are easy to observe (anxious babies crawl & cry near strangers).
Can be confident that attachment types aren’t based on subjective judgement.
78
Limitation of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: Culture-bound
Might not be valid measures of attachment in diff cultural contexts.
-SS developed in Britain & US.
-babies have different cultures & experiences which may impact how they act.
E.g. Japanese study (by Takahashi) babies displayed very high levels of separation anxiety & labelled insecure-resistant. He argues this was not due to attachment insecurity, but rather the unusual nature of mother-child separation which is rare.
Means that it is very difficult to know what the SS is measuring when used outside Europe & US.
79
Limitation of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: Disorganised attachment (Main & Solomon 1986)
Identified a fourth category of alachment - a disorganised or Type D attachment, a mix of resistant
and avoidant behaviours.
Counter: However, this is unusual & usually the result of severe neglect of abuse.
Therefore it is not a **normal** variation of attachment.
So Ainsworth’s argument is an adequate description of normal attachment types.
But, type D is useful as an abnormal attachment type.
80
Studies of Cultural variations: Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonsberg (1988)
Conducted a study to look at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant & insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries to access **cultural variation**. (**inter-culture**)
Also looked at differences within same countries to understand variations within cultures (**intra-culture**)
81
Cross - cultural studies: Aim & Procedure
Aim:
to investigate the reported rates of different infant attachment types in a
range of cultures.
Procedure:
-meta analysis of 32 studies of Strange Situation & 8 countries.
-used over 2000 SS classifications.
-all studies observed ONLY mother-infant pairs & that classified infants into the 3 types.
-excluded studies; no children with special needs, less than 25 pairs, children over 2 years.
82
Cross - cultural studies: Findings
Wide variation between proportion of attachemnt those shown in diff studies.
-secure attachment was the most common, but proportion varied (75% in Britain & 50% in China).
-insecure-resistant was the least common but this varied (3% in UK, 30% in Israel).
-in **individualist** cultures, rates of Type C were similar to Ainsworth’s but in **collectivist**, rates were above (25% in Israel, Japan etc) & they had low Type A.
-variations between results of studies WITHIN the same country were 150% greater than those BETWEEN countries.
E.g. in USA, one study found 46% Type B & in another USA study found 90% Type B.
83
Other studies of Cultural variation: Italian study (Simonelli et al 2014)
Conducted study to see whether the proportions of babies of diff attachemnt tupes still matches those in previous studies.
-assessed 76 babies aged 13 months using SS.
-50% were secure & 36% insecure-avoidant.
-lower rate of secure & hiher of avoidant than in other studies.
-researchers suggest this is since increasing number of mothers of young children working long hours & using professional childcare.
Findings suggest that patterns of attachment type are not static but vary in line with cultural change.
84
Other studies of Cultural variation: Korean study (Jin et al 2012)
Conducted study to compare proportions of attachment types in Korea to others.
-SS used to assess 87 babies.
-overall proportions were similar to most countries & most babies were secure.
-however, most of those classified as insecurely attached were resistant & only one baby was avoidant.
-this is similar to the distribution of attachment types in Japan.
Since Japan & Korea have similar child-rearing styles, this similarity may be explained in terms of child-rearing style.
85
Other studies of Cultural variation: Israel study (Sagi et al)
Collectivist cultures like Israel have higher rates of Type C.
-they tend to live in a Kibbutz (communal living space).
-child rearing shared by adults & sleep in dorms & barely see parents.
-the become familiar with those around them who they normall encounter.
-means they feel extreme stranger anxiety & may reject parent upon return due to lack of connection.
86
Other studies of Cultural variations: Conclusion
Secure attachment seems to be the norm, supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate & universal & this type is the universal norm.
However, research also shows cultural practices have an influence on attachment type.
87
Strength of Studies of cultural variations: Indigenous researchers
-Most studies contain indigenous researchers who are those from the same cultural background as the ppts.
-E.g. Grossman & Takahashi who is German & Japanese.
-Means that there may be misunderstandings/miscommunication & possible bias sue to stereotypes of each others nations.
Means there’s an excellent chance that communication was successful, enhances **validity**.
Counter: Not true of all of their research.
E.g. Morelli & Tronick we’re outsiders from America when they studied child-rearing & patterns of attachment in the Efé of Zaire. May have affected data.
Means that the data from some countries may have been affected by bias & difficulty in cross-cultural communication.
88
Limitation of Studies of cultural variations: Confounding variables
Impact of confounding variables on findings.
-Studies conducted in different counties aren’t usually matched for methodology when they’re compared in reviews or meta-analyses.
-Sample characteristics like social characteristics can confound results as well as the age of ppts.
-Environmental variables can differ studies (availability of interesting toys).
-Less visible proximity-seeming because of room size might make a child more likely to be classified as avoidant.
Means looking at attachment behaviour in different non-matched studies conducted in diff countries may not say anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment.
89
Limitation of Studies of cultural variations: Imposed etic
Trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context.
-Includes the idea of emic (cultural uniqueness) & etic (cross-cultural universality).
-**Imposed etic** occurs when we assume an idea or technique that works in one cultural context will work in another.
-In the Britain & US, lack of affection on reunion with the caregiver in the SS.
-But in Germany, such behaviour is interpreted as independence rather than insecurity.
-Therefore that part of the SS may not work in Germany.
Means that behaviours measured by the SS may not have the same meanings in diff cultural contexts.
90
Limitation of Studies of cultural variations: Ethnocentrism
-Tendency to believe that one’s ethnic group is centrally important y other groups & should be measured in relations to one’s own.
-Method used in SS & measures may only measure American children.
91
Strength of Studies of cultural variations: Large sample
-Nearly 2000 babies & mother analysed.
-Increases internal validity in meta-analyses by reducing the impact of anomalous results.
92
Limitation of Studies of cultural variations: Unrepresentative
-Not representative of different cultures, just countries.
-Many diff child rearing practices.
-May over represent people in poverty, stress affecting caregiving.
-Specific cultural characteristics of the sample should be specified to make cultural comparisons.
93
Bowlby’s theory of Maternal deprivation (1953)
-Maternal deprivation: emotional/intellectual consequences of separation between a child & their mother.
-Bowlby said that continuous care from a mother is essential for normal psychological development & prolonged separation from this adults caused serious damage to development.
-Being separated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences.
94
Bowlby’s theory of Maternal Deprivation: Separation/Deprivation/Privatisation
**Separation**: temporary short period of separation between the caregiver & the infant.
**Deprivation**: infant & caregiver are separated for a period of time, occurs when a bond thats been formed is broken & an element of care is taken away.
**Privatisation**: a child has never been able to form attachments.
-Brief separations particularly where the child is with a substitute caregiver who can provide adequate care are not significant for development, but extended separations can lead to deprivation.
-**Bowlby & Robertson (1952)** observed children experienced intense distress when separated.
95
Bowlby’s theory of Maternal Deprivation: 3 progressive stages of distress
-**Protest:** child cried, screams & angrily protests when the parent leaves & will try to stop parent from leaving by clinging to them.
-**Despair:** the child’s protesting begins to stop & they appear calmer, though upset & child refuses other’s attempts for comfort & often seems withdrawn or uninterested in anything.
-**Detachment:** if separation continues, child will start to engage with others & reject caregiver upon return & show anger.
96
Bowlby’s theory of Maternal Deprivation: Critical period
-Said originally that if a child does not form an affcahment before age 2 & 1/2, then an attachment would never occur.
-Proposed a **sensitive period** (attachment can still form but it takes longer), up to **5** years.
-If a child is separated & there’s an absence of suitable substitute care & deprived of emotional care for an extended period of time during the critical, then psychological damage will be inevitable.
97
Bowlby’s theory of Maternal Deprivation: Effect on Intellectual development & Goldfarb
-Believed if a child experienced MD for too long in the critical period, they would experience **delayed intellectual development**, through abnormally low IQ.
-Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQ in children who remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered & thus had a higher standard of emotional care.
98
Bowlby’s theory of Maternal Deprivation: Effect on Emotional development
-Argued that being deprived of a mother’s care during critical period affected emotional development.
-Bowlby identified **affection-less psychopathology** as the inability to experience guilt/empathy or strong emotions for others.
-Affection-less psychopathology associated with criminality as they cannot appreciate the feelings of the victim & feel no remorse for actions.
99
Bowlby’s theory of Maternal Deprivation: Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944) - Aim
-To investigate effects of MD on people in order to see whether delinquents have suffered deprivation.
-Hypothesis was that breaking the maternal bond with child during early stages of its life is likely to have serious effects on its development.
100
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944) - Procedure
-He interviewed 44 adolescents referred to a child protection program in London because of stealing.
-Selected another group of 44 children referred to the clinic, who had not yet committed a crime, to act as control group.
-Interviewed parents from both groups to state whether their children had experienced separation during the critical period & for how long.
101
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944) - Findings
-**More than half** the juveniles had been separated from mothers for longer than 6 months during their first 5 years.
-Only 2 in the control group had this separation.
-Found **32%** of the thieves showed ‘affection less psychopathology’.
-None of the control groups had this.
-Later, he reported that 60 children who spent time apart from mothers in a tuberculosis sanatorium before age 4, had lower achievement.
102
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944) - Conclusion
-Affectionless psychopaths show little concern for others & are unable to form relationships.
-He concluded that the reason for the anti-social behaviour & emotional problems in the first group was due to MD.
103
Limitation of Bowlby’s theory of Maternal Deprivation: Flawed evidence
Poor quality of evidence.
-Bowlby himself conducted the family interviews & the assessments for affection-less psychopathy.
-He himself had anticipated the responses, so there was room for **researcher bias**.
-Goldfarb’s research on development of deprived children in wartime orphanage was flawed too - **confounding variables**.
-Children in his study had experienced early trauma & institutional care as well as prolonged separation.
Means his evidence was flawed.
Counter: Modest support that MD has long term effects. Levy et al (2003) showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development (tho not other aspects).
Means that his theory has some other evidence to support it.
104
Limitation of Bowlby’s theory of Maternal deprivation: Deprivation & Privation (Rutter 1981)
Confusion between different types of early experienve.
-Rutter said that deprivation strictly refers to the loss of a primary attachment figure, but privation/privatisation refers to failure to form any attachment.
-Rutter points out that severe long term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is likely to be the result of privation.
-So the children studied by Goldfarb may have been ‘prived’ not ‘deprived’.
-Similarly, many of the 44 thieves had disrupted early lives & may not have formed strong attachments.
Means Bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of effects of deprivation in children’s development.
105
Limitation of Bowlby’s theory of Maternal deprivation: Critical VS Sensitive periods
His idea of a critical period.
-He said damage was inevitable if a child hadn’t formed an attachment in the first 2 & 1/2 years of life.
-So this is a critical period.
-However, in many cases, aftercare can prevent most or all this damage.
-She said that the Czech twins experienced very severe physical & emotional abuse from 18 months-17 years.
-They received excellent care & recovered fully by their teens.
Means that lasting harm is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation. The critical period is better seen as a ‘sensitive period’.
106
Strength of Bowlby’s theory of Maternal deprivation: Real-world application & Robertson
-His study had a huge impact on post-war & thinking about child-rearing & how children were looked after in hospitals.
-Before, children were separated from parents in hospitals & visiting was discouraged/forbidden.
-Robertson (1952) filmed a 2 year old girl called a Laura during the 8 days she was in the hospital.
-She was frequently distressed & begs to go home.
Their work led to a major social change in the way children were cared for in a hospital.
107
Romanian orphan studies: Institutionalisation
Effects of living in an institutional setting (hospital/orphanage) where children live for a long & continuous period of time with little emotional care provided.
108
Romanian orphan studies: Romanian orphanages
-Lacked medicine & washing facilities.
-Children subject to sexual & physical abuse.
-Bedrooms infected with fleas, rain and rats due to little funding.
-At 18, most orphans kicked into streets to fend for themselves.
109
Romanian orphan studies: Rutter et al’s research (2011) - Procedure
-165 orphans who were adopted by UK families.
-Wanted to investigate the extent to which good care could make up for poor experiences in institutions.
-Physical, cognitive & emotional development assessed at 4,6,11,15 & 25.
-Progress compared to a control group of 52 British children adopted before 6 months.
110
Romanian orphan studies: Rutter et al’s research (2011) - Findings
-Rome orphans lagged behind British counterparts at time of adoption in all measures of development (weight/intellectual disabilities).
-By 4, children adopted before 6 months caught up to British counterparts.
-By age 11, mean IQ of Rome kids was diff dependant on adoption.
-> Before 6 months = 102.
-> 6 months-2 years = 77.
-IQ also recorded at age 15.
-Those adopted after 6 months, showed signs of disinhibited attachment (clingy) & those before rarely displayed this.
111
Romanian orphan studies: Zeneah et al’s research - Procedure
Wanted toassess the affect of institutionalisation on attachment.
-Conducted Bucharest early intervention(BEI) project, assessing attachment in 95 romanian orphans who spent 12-31 months in institutions.
-Compared to control group of 50 children never been in institutions & placed in foster care.
-Assessed using the strange situation AND interviewed caregivers about ‘unusual’ social behaviour i.e clingy/attention-seeking behaviour directed inappropriately to ALL adults.
112
Romanian orphan studies: Zeneah et al’s research - Findings
-19% institutionalised group showed secure attachment vs 74% control group.
-44% showed disinhibited attachment vs less than 20% control group.
-Conclusion: institutionalisation has a negative impact on attachment formation.
113
Romanian orphan studies: Other effects of institutionalisation - Disinhibited attachment
-Children who spent early lives in institution are equally friendly & affectionate towards family and strangers.
-Unusual (stranger anxiety disown in second year).
-Rutter explained this due to adaptation to living with multiple caregivers during sensitive attachment formation period.
114
Romanian orphan studies: Other effects of institutionalisation - Intellectual disability
-In Ritter’s study, most children showed signs of intellectual disability when they arrived in Britain.
-Most of those adopted before 6 months caught up by 4.
-Damage to intellectual development can be recovered provided adoption is before 6 months (when attachments form).
115
Strength of Romanian orphan studies: Real-world application (Langton 2006)
Improved conditions for children growing up outside family home.
-Improvements in conditions experienced by looked-after children ie. children in care system.
-E.g. children’s homes avoid having large no. of caregivers.
-1/2 key workers who play central role in emotional care.
-More effort to accommodate children in foster care/adoption rather than institution.
Means children in institutions have a chance to develop normal attachments & avoid disinhibited.
116
Strength of Romanian orphan studies: Fewer confounding variables
-Many orphans in WW2 had differing degrees of trauma.
-Children in Romanian orphanages had been handed over by loving parents who couldn’t afford to keep them.
Results less likely to be confounded by other negative early experiences (higher internal validity).
Counter: may have diff confounding variables. Quality of care was poor with little intellectual stimulation/comfort.
Means harmful effects may represent the effects of poor institutional care, not regular.
117
Limitation of Romanian orphan studies: Lack of adult data
Lack of data on adult development.
-Latest data from ERA studylooked at children from early age-mid 20s.
-Lifetime precedence of mental problems? Maintaining adult/parental relationships?
-Long time to gather data - longitudinal study.
Means it’ll be some time before we know the long term effects of Romanian children.
118
Evaluation of Romanian orphan studies: Social sensitivity
-Results show that late-adopted children typically have poor developmental outcomes.
-Results have been published children grew up so teachers may have lowered expectations/treated pupils differently (self-fulfilling prophecy).
However, much has been learnt which may benefit institutionalised children.
119
Early attachment & later relationships: Internal working model (Bowlby)
-A mental schema for relationships where first relationship acts as a template for future ones, influencing how secure they are - **security hypothesis**.
-Secure may seek out reliable/functional relationships, avoidant may be uninvolved, resistant may be controlling.
120
Early attachment & later relationships: Relationships in childhood
-Securely attached infants=best quality childhood friendships.
-Insecurely attached infants=difficult friendships.
(Kerns 1994)
-**Wilson & Smith** assessed attachment type & bulking in 196 7-11 year olds.
-Found secure were unlikely to be involved, avoidant were victims & resistant were bullies.
121
Early attachment & later relationships: Relationships in adulthood - Romantic (Hazer & Shavan)
Procedure: analysed 620 replies to ‘love quiz’ which had 3 sections. One assessing respondents current/most important relationship. One assessing general love experiences & finally assessing attachment type.
Findings: 56% were securely attached, 25% avoidant & 19% resistant.
Those reporting secure had longer lasting romantic experiences. Avoidants were jealous/scared of intimacy.
Patterns of attachment behaviour reflected in relationships.
122
Early attachment & later relationships: Relationships in adulthood - Parent (Bailey et al 2007)
-People to base their parenting style on their IWM so attachment types are passed down through the generations.
-99 mothers and their babies attachments assessed in the strange situation.
-The mothers’ attachments to their own mothers were assessed using an
adult attachment interview.
-The majority of women had the same attachment type to both their
babies and their mothers.
123
Strength of Early attachment & later relationships: Longitudinal research / Retrospective data
-Simpson et al found that ppts securely attached as infants were rated as having higher social competence as children & were closer to friends at 16 & more expressive & emotionally attached to romantic partners in adulthood.
Supports view that attachment type predicts relationships in adulthood.
Counter: Reliance on retrospective data means there are issues with validity. when adults are questioned about early life, their recollections may be flawed due to memories not being accurate, affecting classification.
124
Strength of Early attachment & later relationships: Supporting research (Fearon & Roisman 2017)
-Found that early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional well-being & attachment to children.
-Strength of attachment type & depends on that and later development.
-Avoidants have little disadvantages BUT disorganised attachment is heavily associated with mental disorder.
Counter: Stoll et al followed 43 individuals from 1 year of age & at age 16, attachment assessed using adukt attachment interview & no evidence of continuity.
125
Limitation of Early attachment & later relationships: Correlational
Research linking IWM & later relationships is correlational, not experimental and cause & effect cannot be established.
-Possible that attachment style and later relationships are caused by innate temperament.
-May explain issues with relationships.
Temperament is an intervening variable.
126
Limitation of Early attachment & later relationships: Deterministic/Probalistic (Clarke & Clarke)
-Suggested by Havan/Shaver that early experiences have a fixed effect & children insecurely attached at 1 years old are doomed & will experience unsatisfactory relationships as adults.
-An insecure attachment will not inevitably cause an increased risk of development problems.
-May be because of other factors & knowing attachment status can help intervene & help them.
-May be too pessimistic.
