attachment

Question 1

what is attachment? (attachment)

Answer 1

• a close 2 way emotional bond between 2 individuals in which each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security

Question 2

why is caregiver-infant interaction important? (2) (attachment)

Answer 2

• from the beginning of their lives babies have meaningful interactions with their caregiver
• this is important as they help aid the babies’ social development & the development of the attachment between themselves & the caregivers

Question 3

what is reciprocity? (2) (attachment)

Answer 3

• a description of how 2 people interact
• caregiver-infant interaction is reciprocal in that both caregiver & baby respond to each other’s signals & each elicits a response from the other

Question 4

when is a reaction said to show reciprocity & why is it important in conversations? (3) (attachment)

Answer 4

• when each person responds to the other & elicits a response from them
• e.g. when a baby smiles & a caregiver says something to them, then the baby responds (usually via sound or movement)
• it is important for conversation as otherwise people would just talk over each other

Question 5

state the two types of reciprocity (attachment)

Answer 5

• alert phases
• active involvement

Question 6

outline the theory behind alert phases (4) (attachment)

Answer 6

• babies signal that they are ready for interaction (e.g. through eye contact)
• research from Feldman & Edelman (2007) shows that mothers typically pick up on & respond to their baby’s alertness around 2/3 of the time
• this varies according to the skill of the mother or external factors like stress (Finegood et al 2016)
• from 3 month this interaction tends to become more frequent & involves both mother & baby paying close attention to each other’s facial expressions (Feldman 2007)

Question 7

outline the theory behind active involvement (2) (attachment)

Answer 7

• both babies & caregivers have an active role
• both caregiver & baby can initiate interactions & take turns in doing so

Question 8

what is interactional synchrony (2) (attachment)

Answer 8

• caregiver & baby reflect both the actions & emotions of the other & do this in a co-ordinated/synchronised way (they mirror each other)
• can also be defined as ‘the temporal co-ordination of micro-level social behaviour’ (Feldman 2007)

Question 9

outline Meltzoff & Moore (1977) research into when synchrony begins (4) (attachment)

Answer 9

• observed the beginnings of interactional synchrony in babies as young as 2 weeks old
• an adult displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions or 1 of 3 distinct gestures
• the baby’s response was filmed & labelled by independent observers
• babies’ expressions & gestures were more likely to mirror those of the adults more than chance would predict (there was significant association)

Question 10

outline Isabella et al (1989) research into the importance of interactional for attachment (4) (attachment)

Answer 10

• it is believed that interactional synchrony is important for the development of caregiver-infant attachment
• observed 30 mothers & babies together & assessed the degree of synchrony
• also assessed the quality of mother-baby attachment
• found that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-baby attachment (e.g. the emotional intensity of the relationship)

Question 11

outline 3 strengths (1 CP) of research into caregiver-infant interaction (attachment)

Answer 11

filmed observations:
- CG-I interactions are usually filmed in a lab
- this means that extraneous variables (that may distract a baby) can be controlled
- using films means that observations can be recorded & analysed later, therefore it is unlikely that researchers will miss seeing key behaviours
- furthermore having filmed interactions means that more than one observer can record data & establish the inter-rater reliability of observations
- babies don’t know they are being observed so their behaviour doesn’t change (no demands Cs)
- therefore the data collected in such research should have good reliability (lab) & credibility (IRR)

developmental importance counterpoint:
- there is evidence from other lines of research to suggest that early interactions are important
- e.g. Isabella et al (1989) found that achievement of interactional synchrony predicted the development of good quality attachment
- this means that, on balance, CG-I interaction is probably important in development

practical application:
- has practical application in parenting skills training
- Crotwell et al (2013) found that a 10 minute parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) improved interactional synchrony in 20 low income mothers & their preschool children
- applications gives the research high credibility
- CG-I interaction can be used & applied to improve attachments, which means it has high ecological validity

• research into CG-I interactions is socially sensitive as it can be used to argue that when a mother returns to work soon after having a baby this may risk damaging their baby’s development h

Question 12

outline 2 weaknesses of research into caregiver-infant interaction (attachment)

Answer 12

difficulty observing babies:
- it is hard to interpret a baby’s behaviour
- young babies lack co-ordination & much of their bodies are almost immobile
- the movements being observed are just small hand movements or subtle changes in expression
- it is also difficult to determine what is taking place from the baby’s perspective
- e.g. if a movement like a hand twitch is random or triggered by something the caregiver has done
- this means that we can’t be certain that the behaviours seen in CG-I interactions have a special meaning

developmental importance:
- observing a behaviour doesn’t tell is its developmental importance
- Feldman (2012) points out that ideas like synchrony (& by implication reciprocity) simply give names to patterns of observable care giver & baby behaviours
- they can be reliably observed but they still may not be particularly useful in understanding child development as it doesn’t tell us the purpose of these behaviours
- this means that we can’t be certain from observational research alone that reciprocity & synchrony are important for a child’s development

Question 13

outline Schaffer & Emerson (1964) research into attachments to fathers & state what it tells us about the role of the father (5) (attachment)

Answer 13

• babies often first become attached to their mothers at 7 months
• in 3% of cases the father was the first sole object of attachment
• in 27% of cases the father was the joint first object of attachment
• 75% of the babies formed an attachment to their fathers by the age of 18 months (tested by seeing if the baby protested when the father walked away)
• tells us that fathers are often not the first attachment figures compared to mothers, but they do become an important attachment figure to their baby by the age of 18 months

Question 14

outline Grossmann et al (2002) research into distinctive roles for fathers & state what it tells us about the role of the father (6) (attachment)

Answer 14

• carried out a longitudinal study where babies’ attachment was studied up until they were teenagers
• looked at both parents behaviour & its relationship to the quality of their baby’s later attachments to others
• found that quality of a baby’s attachment to their mother was related to attachments in adolescence
• found that quality of father’s play with babies was related to quality of adolescent attachments
• tells us that attachment to fathers may be less important than attachments to mothers
• fathers have a different role - one that is stimulation & play compared to emotional development

Question 15

outline Field (1978) research into fathers as early attachment figures & state what it tells us about the role of the father (5) (attachment)

Answer 15

• some evidence to suggest that when fathers do take on the role of the primary caregiver they are able to adopt the role that is associated with mothers
• filmed 4 month old babies face-to-face interactions with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers & primary caregiver fathers
• found that the interactions of PCGF & PCGM were similar
• PCGF spent more time smiling, imitating & holding their baby than SCGF (part of reciprocity & interactional synchrony, which are part of the process of attachment formation (Isabella et al 1989))
• tells us that fathers have the potential to be the more emotion focused attachment figure & provide the responsiveness a baby requires for an attachment bond

Question 16

outline 2 strengths of research into the role of the father (attachment)

Answer 16

real world application:
- research can be used to offer advice to parents
- parents often find it hard to decide who should be the primary caregiver
- mothers may feel pressured to stay at home due to stereotypes about parental roles
- fathers may feel pressured to focus on work rather than parenting
- research also means that single mother & lesbian parent families can be informed that not having a father present doesn’t affect a child’s development
- this means that parental anxiety about the role of fathers can be reduced
- this adds practical value & increases credibility

conflicting evidence CP:
- lines of research may not be in conflict
- it could be that fathers typically take on distinctive roles in two parent heterosexual families, but parents in single mother or lesbian parent families adapt to accommodate the role played by fathers
- this means that the role of the father is clear in that they tend to adopt a distinct role when present, but families can adapt to not having a father

Question 17

outline 2 weaknesses of research into the role of the father (attachment)

Answer 17

confusion over research questions:
- lack of clarity over research questions
- the idea of the role of the father is very complex
- some researchers want to understand the role of fathers as secondary attachment figures (these researchers have seen fathers as behaving differently from mothers & having a distinct role)
- other researchers are more concerned with understanding the role of fathers as primary attachment figures (these researchers have found that fathers can take on a maternal role)
- this makes it difficult to obtain a simple answer as it depends on what specific role is being discussed

conflicting evidence:
- findings vary according to methodology used
- longitudinal studies (e.g. Grossmann et al 2002) have suggested that fathers as secondary attachment figures have an important & distinct role in their child’s development, involving play & stimulation
- however, if fathers have a distinctive & important role we would expect children growing up in single mother & lesbian parent families would be developmentally different from those in 2 parent heterosexual families
- studies (e.g. McCallum & Golombok 2004) consistently show that these children don’t develop differently from children in 2 parent heterosexual families
- this means that the question as to whether fathers have a distinctive role remains unanswered & we can’t determine that fathers play a distinctive role in child development

Question 18

outline the procedure & findings of Lorenz & state what he discovered about imprinting (1952) (attachment)

Answer 18

procedure:
- randomly divided up goose eggs
- half were hatched with the mother goose in their natural environment
- the other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz

findings:
- the incubated group followed Lorenz everywhere whereas the control group (hatched in the presence of their mother) followed her
- when the 2 groups were mixed up the control group continued to follow the mother & the experimental group followed Lorenz

• imprinting = bird species attach to the first moving object they see
• Lorenz identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to occur (13-16 hours)
• if imprinting doesn’t occur in that time Lorenz found that chick’s didn’t attach themselves to a mother figure (so wouldn’t survive)

Question 19

outline what Lorenz (1952) discovered about sexual imprinting (3) (attachment)

Answer 19

• case study that describes a peacock that has been reared in the reptile house of a zoo where the first moving object it saw were giant tortoises
• as an adult the bird would only direct courtship behaviour towards giant tortoises
• Lorenz concluded the peacock had undergone sexual imprinting

Question 20

what does the research from Lorenz (1952) tell us about attachment? (2)

Answer 20

• the importance of the critical period for attachment
• attachment via imprinting is necessary for survival

Question 21

evaluate Lorenz (1952) animal study of attachment (attachment)

Answer 21

research support:
- support for the concept of imprinting
- Regolin & Vallortigara (1995) supports this
- exposed chicks to different shape combinations that moved
- range of shape combos were then moved in front of them & they followed the original shape most closely
- this supports the view that young animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object present in the critical window of development, as predicted by Lorenz

generalisability to humans:
- it is difficult to generalise the findings & conclusions from birds to humans
- the mammalian attachment system is different & more complex than in birds
- e.g. attachment in mammals is a two way process, so mothers also show emotional attachment to their child
- critical periods are also too different to make a direct comparison (e.g. 13-16 hours for birds & 2.5 years for humans)
- this means that it is probably not appropriate to generalise Lorenz’s ideas to humans

Question 22

what inspired Harlow (1958) animal study into attachment? (attachment)

Answer 22

• Harlow observed that baby monkeys who were left alone in a cage often died but could survive if they were given something soft (like a cloth) to cuddle

Question 23

outline the procedure & findings of Harlow (1958) (attachment)

Answer 23

procedure:
- tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother
- reared 16 baby monkeys with 2 wire ‘mothers’
- in one condition milk was dispensed by the plain wire mother & in another it was dispensed by the cloth-covered mother
- the baby monkeys were then frightened by an animatronic

findings:
- the baby monkeys cuddled the cloth-covered mother in preference to the plain-wire mother & sought comfort from the cloth mother when frightened by the animatronic (regardless of which mother dispensed milk to them)
- this showed that ‘contact comfort’ was of more importance to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour

Question 24

what did Harlow (1958) find about maternally deprived monkeys as adults? (5) (attachment)

Answer 24

• researched followed the maternally deprived monkeys into adulthood to see if the deprivation had a permanent effect
• monkeys reared with the plain wire mother only were the most dysfunctional
• even those reared with the cloth mother didn’t develop normal social behaviour
• the deprived monkeys were more aggressive & less sociable & bred less often than typical for monkeys (unskilled at mating)
• when they became mothers some of the deprived monkeys neglected their young & attacked them (even killing them in some cases)

Question 25

what does Harlow (1958) tell us about the critical period? (2) (attachment)

Answer 25

- a mother figure 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

Question 26

what does Harlow (1958) tell us about attachment? (3) (attachment)

Answer 26

- contact comfort was more important than food for attachment - maternal deprivation can have lasting consequences that are seen in adults - the importance of the critical period

Question 27

evaluate Harlow (1958) animal study into attachment (1+2) (attachment)

Answer 27

real world application: - has helped social workers & clinical psychologists understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in child development, allowing them to intervene to prevent poor outcomes (Howe 1998) - we also now understand the importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos & breeding programmes in the wild - this means that the value of Harlow’s research is not just theoretical but also practical, so it has high ecological validity generalisability to humans: - it is hard to generalise findings & conclusions from monkeys to humans - rhesus monkeys are more similar to humans than Lorenz’s birds & all males share attachment behaviours - however, the human brain & human behaviour is still more complex than that of monkeys - this means that it may not be appropriate to generalise Harlow’s findings to humans because there are several key differences between the 2 mammals (e.g. critical period is 90 days for monkeys for 6 months-2 years for humans) ethics: - research may be deemed unethical - the deprivation caused by the study had lasting & permanent effects on the monkeys that meant they didn’t develop normal social behaviours (even as adults) - this may mean the research isn’t widely respected due the the damage caused to the monkeys, so it may lack credibility

Question 28

outline the basis of learning theory (3) (attachment)

Answer 28

- Dollard & Miller (1950) suggested that caregiver-infant interaction can be explained by learning theory - it is sometimes called the ‘cupboard love’ approach as it emphasises the importance of the attachment figure as a provider of food - children learn to love whoever feeds them

Question 29

outline how classical conditioning can be used in learning theory to explain attachment (7) (attachment)

Answer 29

before conditioning: - unconditioned stimulus (food) —> unconditioned response (happy baby - the baby receives pleasure from feeding) during conditioning: - neutral stimulus (mother - initially produces no response) + unconditioned stimulus (food) —> unconditioned response (happy baby) - when the caregiver provides food, over time they become associated with food so when the baby sees them there is an expectation of food after conditioning: - conditioned stimulus (mother) —> conditioned response (happy baby) - the neutral stimulus becomes the conditioned stimulus - once conditioning has taken place the caregiver gives conditioned response of pleasure - learning theorists argue that this conditioned pleasure response is love (an attachment is formed & the caregiver becomes an attachment figure)

Question 30

how can learning theory use operant conditioning to explain why babies cry for comfort? (6) (attachment)

Answer 30

- comfort is important for attachment - a baby crying leads to a response from the caregiver (e.g. feeding) - there is positive reinforcement if the caregiver gives the correct response (as the behaviour is reinforced) - the baby learns to direct the crying for comfort towards the caregiver, who responds with comfort - there is also negative reinforcement for the caregiver as they also experience operant conditioning (as the crying stops - escaping from something unpleasant) - this mutual reinforcement strengthens attachment

Question 31

outline how learning theory can represent attachment as a secondary drive (5) (attachment)

Answer 31

- learning theory can be applied to the concept of drive reduction - hunger can be seen as the primary drive (as it is an innate biological motivation) - we are motivated to eat to reduce the hunger drive - Sears et al (1957) suggested that, as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them - attachment is therefore a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver & the satisfaction of the primary drive

Question 32

evaluate learning theory as an explanation for attachment (1+3) (attachment)

Answer 32

some conditioning may be involved (S): - elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of attachment - it seems unlikely that association with food plays a central role in attachment, but conditioning may still play a role - e.g. a baby may associate feeling warm & comfortable with the presence of a particular adult, & this may influence the baby’s choice of their main attachment figure - this means that learning theory may still be useful in understanding the development of attachments conditioning counterpoint: - both classical & operant conditioning explanations see the baby playing a passive role in attachment development - they respond to associations with comfort or rewards - research shows that babies take a very active role in the interactions that produce attachments (e.g. Feldman & Eidelman 2007) - this means that conditioning may not be an adequate explanation of any aspect of attachment development counter-evidence from animal studies: - lack of support from studies conducted on animals - e.g. Lorenz’s geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw, regardless of if the object was associated with food - Harlow’s monkeys showed no support for the importance of food. When given a choice, they displayed attachment behaviour towards the cloth mother rather than the wire mother (which provided them with milk) - this shows that factors other than association with food are important in the formation of attachments counter-evidence from human studies: - lack of support from studies on human babies - e.g. Schaffer & Emerson (1964) found that babies tended to for their main attachment to their mother regardless of whether she was the one who usually fed them - Isabella et al (1989) found that high levels of interactional synchrony predicted the quality of attachment - these factors aren’t related to feeding - this suggests that food isn’t the main factor in the formation of human attachments

Question 33

outline the emergence of Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation for attachment (2) (attachment)

Answer 33

- Bowlby (1988) rejected learning theory as he didn’t believe that infants attached to who fed them - he was instead inspired by Lorenz (1952) & Harlow (1958) & proposed an evolutionary explanation that attachment is an innate system that gives a survival advantage

Question 34

why is Bowlby’s theory describes as being monotropic? (attachment)

Answer 34

- it places emphasis on a child attaching to 1 particular caregiver

Question 35

outline Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation for attachment (5) (attachment)

Answer 35

- places emphasis on a child attaching to 1 particular caregiver - he also believed that his attachment was different to other attachments & is more important - this person was called the ‘mother’ but doesn’t need to be the biological mother, or female at all - he believed that the more time a baby spent with their primary caregiver, the better - he put forward 2 principles within his theory

Question 36

outline the 2 principles involved in Bowlby’s monotropic theory (attachment)

Answer 36

- the law of continuity —> the more constant & predictable a child’s care is, the more better the quality of their attachment - the law of accumulated separation —> the effects of every separation from the mother adds up & can have negative consequences

Question 37

outline what social releases are as part of Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment (3) (attachment)

Answer 37

- suggested that babies are born with an innate set of ‘cute behaviours’ (e.g. smiling, cooing, giggling) that encourage attention from adults - their purpose of to activate adult social interaction & so make an adult attach to the baby - he also recognised that this attachment is a 2 way process

Question 38

what did Bowlby propose about the critical period as part of his theory of attachment? (3) (attachment)

Answer 38

- proposed it was 6 months to up to 2 years of age (when an infant attachment system is active) - called it a sensitive period (as children are maximally sensitive from the age of 6 months possible up to 2 years) - if an attachment is not formed in this time, child will find it harder to form one later

Question 39

outline the internal working model at part of Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment (3) (attachment)

Answer 39

- our mental representations of the world (e.g. the representation we have of our relationship to our primary caregiver) - this model affects our future relationships because it carries our perception of what relationships are like - e.g. a child whose first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to form an expectation that all relationships are loving & reliable, & they will bring these qualities to future relationships

Question 40

give 2 strengths of Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation of attachment (attachment)

Answer 40

research support for social releasers: - there is clear evidence that cute baby behaviours are designed elicit interactions from caregivers - Brazelton et al (1975) observed babies trigger interactions from adults using social releasers - they then asked the primary attachment figure to ignore the social releasers - observed that babies (who had been normally responsive previously) became increasingly distressed & some even curled up & became motionless - this demonstrates the role of social releasers in emotional development & suggests that they are important in the process of attachment development support for the internal working model: - the idea of the IWM is that it predicts patterns of attachment will be passed from one generation to the next - Bailey et al (2007) assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers & their 1 year old babies - they measured the mothers attachment to their own primary attachment figure & assessed the quality of attachment to their babies - found that mothers with poor attachment to their own primary attachment figure were more likely to have poorly attached babies - this supports Bowlby’s idea that mothers’ ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their IWM (which in turn comes from their own early attachment experience)

Question 41

give 2 weaknesses of Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation for attachment (attachment)

Answer 41

validity of monotropic challenged: - concept of monotropic lacks validity - Schaffer & Emerson (1964) found that although most babies did attach to one person at first, some of them formed multiple attachments at the same time - also, it believed that the first attachment doesn’t really have much of an influence on later behaviour, so it may just be stronger but not a different type of attachment - this means that Bowlby may be incorrect that there is a unique quality & importance to the child’s primary attachment too deterministic: - determinism = all actions are causally inevitable - Bowlby states that if you have a positive relationship with your primary caregiver all other relationships you have will also be positive, & vice versa - this ignores other alternative factors (e.g. environmental) that may cause a different type of relationship to develop - this means it can’t explain instances where this isn’t true (e.g. when a person gets into an unhealthy relationship despite having a good one with their parents), meaning it lacks validity

Question 42

what was the aim of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation? (attachment)

Answer 42

- Ainsworth & Bell (1971) aimed to observe key attachment behaviours to assess the quality of a baby’s attachment to their caregiver

Question 43

outline the procedure of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation, including the 5 behaviours that were assessed (attachment)

Answer 43

- observed 100 American infants between 12-18 months old - controlled observation that took place in a laboratory (with controlled conditions) with a two way mirror and/or cameras that could be used to observe the baby’s behaviour behaviours assessed: - proximity seeking: a baby with good quality attachment will stay fairly close to their caregiver - exploration & secure base behaviour: good attachment enables a baby to feel confident to explore, using their caregiver as a secure base - stranger anxiety: a sign of good attachment is a display of anxiety in the presence of a stranger - separation anxiety: another sign of a good attachment is to protest/display anxiety when separated from their caregiver - response to reunion: a securely attached baby will show pleasure & comfort when they are reunited with their caregiver

Question 44

outline the key stages of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation & state what behaviours each stage tested (8) (attachment)

Answer 44

- 1) observer introduces mother & baby to the experimental room. The observer then leaves the room - 2) mother is nonparticipant while baby explores. Play is stimulated if necessary (tests exploration & secure-base behaviour) - 3) stranger enters. They are initially silent but then interact with mother & baby. Mother leaves (tests stranger anxiety & separation anxiety) - 4) first separation episode. Stranger’s behaviour is geared towards that of baby (tests separation anxiety & stranger anxiety) - 5) first reunion episode. Mother greets & comforts baby, then settles them into play. Both mother & stranger leave (tests response to reunion & exploration & secure-base behaviour) - 6) second separation episode. Baby is left alone (tests separation anxiety) - 7) continuation of second separation. Stranger enters & gears behaviour towards that of baby (tests stranger anxiety) - 8) second reunion episode. Mother enters & greets baby. Stranger leaves (response to reunion)

Question 45

outline the findings on types of attachment from Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (attachment)

Answer 45

secure attachment (type B): - 60%-75% of the British population - show exploration & secure-base behaviour (explore happily but regularly go back to caregiver) - show moderate stranger anxiety - show moderate separation anxiety - show comfort & pleasure when reunited with caregiver insecure-avoidant attachment (type A): - 20%-25% of the British population - shows exploration without secure-base behaviour (explore freely but don’t stay in proximity to caregiver) - show little/no stranger anxiety - show little/no separation anxiety - don’t seek contact for reunion with caregiver or may avoid contact with them insecure-resistant attachment (type C): - 3% of the British population - show greater secure-base behaviour & are less likely to engage in exploration - show high stranger anxiety - show high separation anxiety - reject reunion with caregiver & doesn’t seek comfort from them

Question 46

outline 2 strengths of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (attachment)

Answer 46

good predictive reliability: - outcome predicts a number of aspects of baby’s later behaviour - lots of research has shows that babies & toddlers assessed as being secure (type B) tend to have better outcomes in later childhood & adulthood. This includes better achievement in school & less involvement in bullying (McCormick et al (2016) & Kokkinos (2007)) - securely attached babies also tend to go on to have better mental health in adulthood (Ward et al (2006)) - babes assessed as having insecure-resistant attachment (type C) or not falling into types A, B or C tend to have the worst outcomes - this suggests that the Strange Situation measures something real & meaningful in a baby’s development good reliability: - Strange Situation has good inter-rater reliability - Bick et al (2012) tested the inter-rater reliability for a team of trained observers & found agreement of attachment type in 94% of cases - this high reliability may be because the procedure takes place under controlled conditions & because behaviours (e.g. proximity seeking & stranger anxiety) involve large movements & therefore are easy to observe - this means that we can be confident that attachment type as assessed by the Strange Situation doesn’t depend on subjective measures

Question 47

outline 2 weaknesses of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (attachment)

Answer 47

good predictive reliability CP: - the Strange Situation measures something important that is associated with later development, but not all psychologists think that it is attachment - e.g. Kagan (1982) suggested that genetically-influenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment behaviour in the Strange Situation - this means that the Strange Situation may not actually measure attachment may be culture bound: - may not be a valid measure of attachment in different cultural contexts - Strange Situation was developed in Britain & the US, meaning it may be culture bound so it is only valid for use in certain countries - this may be because babies have different experiences in different cultures that may affect their responses to the Strange Situation - a Japanese study by Takahashi (1986) found that babies displayed very high levels of separation anxiety & so a disproportional number were classified as insecure-resistant - Takahashi (1990) suggests that this anxiety response was not due to high rates of attachment insecurity but because mother-baby separation is rare in Japan - this means that it is very difficult to know what the Strange Situation is measuring when used outside of the US

Question 48

outline the aim, procedure & findings of van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) (attachment)

Answer 48

aim: - looked at proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant & insecure-resistant attachments across countries to assess cultural variations - also looked at the differences within the same countries to assess variations within a culture procedure: - located 32 studies where the Strange Situation was used to investigate the proportions of babies with different attachment types - the studies were conducted across 8 countries (15 were in the US) - overall the studies contained results for 1990 children - the data was them meta analysed (results are combined together & each study is weighted for sample size) findings: - there was wide variation between the proportion of attachment in different studies - in all the countries secure attachment (type B) was the most common, however this varied across cultures (e.g. 75% in Britain, 64% in Israel & 50% in China) - in individualist countries, rates of insecure-resistant attachment (type C) were similar to Ainsworth’s original study (all under 14% - e.g. 3% in Britain, 4% in Sweden & 7% in the Netherlands) - in collectivist cultures, insecure-resistant rates were above 25% (e.g. 29% in Israel, 27% in Japan & 25% in China). Insecure- avoidant attachment was low in these countries (7%, 5% & 25% respectively) - also found that there was variation between studies conducted in the same country (e.g. variation between results was 150% greater than between cultures)

Question 49

outline the aim, procedure & findings of Simonelli et al (2014) (attachment)

Answer 49

aim: - Italian study that looked to see if the proportions of babies with different attachment types matched results found in previous studies procedure: - assessed 76 babies aged 12 months using the Strange Situation findings: - found 50% were secure & 36% were insecure-avoidant (Lowe rate of secure & higher rate of insecure avoidant than had been previously found) explanation: - researchers suggest that this may be because increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours & use professional childcare - these findings suggest that patterns of attachment types vary with cultural changes

Question 50

outline the aim, procedure & findings of Mu Kyoung Jin et al (2012) (attachment)

Answer 50

aim: - Korean study that compared the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other countries procedure: - used the Strange Situation to assess 87 babies findings: - overall proportions of insecure & secure babies were similar to most countries, which most babies being secure - most of the insecure babies were classed as insecure-resistant, with only 1 baby being insecure-avoidant - this was similar to results found in Japan (van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988)) explanation: - this may be able to be explained because Japan & Korea have similar child rearing styles

Question 51

what can research into cultural variations in attachment tell us? (3) (attachment)

Answer 51

- secure attachment seems to be the most common type of attachment in a range of attachment (however this varies across cultures) - this supports Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate & universal, & that type B is the universal norm - cultural practices have an influence on attachment as the rates of insecure-avoidant & insecure-resistant babies ranges from country to country

Question 52

evaluate research into cultural variations in attachment (1+3) (attachment)

Answer 52

indigenous researchers (S) - most of the studies were conducted by indigenous researchers - van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg included research by a German psychologist (Grossmann et al (1981)) & a Japanese psychologist (Takahashi (1986)), who were from the same cultural background as their Ps - this means that may problems in cross cultural research can be avoided (e.g. misunderstanding of language or difficulty communicating instructions. It can also include bias due to one nation’s stereotypes of another) - this means that it is very likely that researchers & Ps communicated successfully, which increases the validity of the data collected indigenous researchers CP (W): - not all cross-cultural attachment research has been conducted by indigenous researchers - e.g. Morelli & Tronick (1991) were outsiders from America when they studied child-rearing & patterns of attachment in the Efé of Zaire - their data may have been affected by difficulties in gathering data from Ps outside their own culture - this means that the data from some countries might have been affected by bias & difficulty in cross cultural communication confounding variables (W): - studies conducted in different countries aren’t usually matched for methodology when they are compared for meta analysis - characteristics like age, social class & financial status can confound results - environmental factors may also differ between studies & confound variables (e.g. size of the room & availability of toys - babies may appear to explore more in small rooms with attractive toys than a large, bare room. Less visible proximity seeking because of room size may cause a child to be more likely to be classed as insecure-avoidant) - this means that looking at attachment behaviour is different countries via non-matched studies may not tell us anything about cross cultural patterns of attachment imposed etic (W): - cross cultural research may try to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context - imposed etic occurs when we assume an idea of technique that works in one cultural context will work in another, suggesting there is universality between cultures - with the Strange Situation, a lack of response to reunion in the USA & Britain is seen as insecure-avoidant but in Germany, this shows independence rather than insecurity - this means that the behaviours measured by the Strange Situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts, & comparing them across cultures is meaningless

Question 53

what is maternal deprivation? (attachment)

Answer 53

- the emotional & intellectual consequences of separation from a mother/mother substitute

Question 54

what is the difference between separation & deprivation? (4) (attachment)

Answer 54

- separation: the absence of a primary attachment figure - deprivation: the absence of emotional care (where the caregiver could still be present) - separation only becomes a problem when there is deprivation (so the child is deprived of emotional care) - brief separation (especially when there is a substitute caregiver who can provide emotional care) aren’t significant for development but extended separations can lead to deprivation

Question 55

what did Bowlby believe & deduce about the critical period in humans? (3) (attachment)

Answer 55

- saw the first 2.5 years of life as the critical period - thought that continuous care from the mother was essential for typical development & if a child is separated from their mother & deprived of her emotional care (& doesn’t have suitable substitute caregiver) for an extended duration during this critical period that psychological damage was inevitable - also believed that there was a continuing risk up to 5 years of age

Question 56

what effects did Bowlby believe maternal deprivation has on intellectual development? (3) (attachment)

Answer 56

- believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would experience delayed intellectual development, which was shown by an unusually low IQ - this has been demonstrated in studies of adoption - e.g. Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQs in children who has been in institutions opposed to those who were fostered (& therefore had a higher standard of emotional care)

Question 57

what effects did Bowlby believe maternal deprivation had on emotional development? (3) (attachment)

Answer 57

- identified the development of affectionless psychopathy - this prevents people from developing fulfilling relationships & find it difficult to experience guilt & empathy - this means that it is often associated with criminality as they feel a lack of remorse & emotion for their victims because they can’t appreciate the feelings of the victims

Question 58

outline the aim, procedure, findings & conclusions form Bowlby’s (1944) 44 thieves study (attachment)

Answer 58

aim: - examined the link between affectionless psychopathy & maternal deprivation procedure: - sample consisted of 44 teenage criminals accused to stealing - all the thieves were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy (lack of affection, lack of guilt for their actions & lack of apathy for their victims) - their families were also interviewed to establish whether the thieves had prolonged early separations from their mothers - the sample was compared to a control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people findings: - found that 14/44 thieves cold be described as affectionless psychopaths, & 12 of them has experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in their first 2.5 years of life - only 5 of them remaining 30 thieves had experienced separations - only 2/44 Ps from the control group had experienced long separations conclusion: - prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy

Question 59

evaluate Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (1+3) (attachment)

Answer 59

flawed evidence CP (S): - a new line of research has provided some support for the idea that maternal deprivation can have long-term effects - Lévy et al (2003) shows that separating baby rates from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development, though not on any other aspects of development - this means that although Bowlby relied on flawed evidence to support the theory of maternal deprivation, there are other sources of evidence for his ideas flawed evidence (W): - the theory is based on poor quality evidence - Bowlby’s 44 thieves study is flawed because it was Bowlby himself who carried out both the family interviews & the assessments for affectionless psychopathy - this left him open to bias because he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy, therefore the results lack internal validity - other sources of his evidence were also flawed - e.g. he was influenced by Goldfarb’s (1943) research on the development of deprived children in wartime orphanages, which had issues with confounding variables as the children has experiences early trauma, institutional care & prolonged separation for their primary caregivers - this means that Bowlby’s original sources of evidence for maternal deprivation had serious flaws deprivation vs privation (W): - there is confusion between different types of early experience - Rutter (1981) made an important districting on between deprivation & privation - deprivation of the loss of the primary attachment figure (& therefore a lack of emotional care) after an attachment has developed - privation of the failure to form any attachment in the first place (could happen when children are bought up in institutional care) - Rutter pointed out that the severe long term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation was more likely to be the result of privation - this means that Bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation in a child’s development critical vs sensitive period: - Bowlby believe that damage was inevitable if a child hadn’t formed an attachment in the first 2.5 years of life, so this is a critical period - however there is evidence to suggest that in many cases good quality aftercare can prevent most/all of this damage - e.g. Koluchová (1976) reported the case of the Czech twins, who experienced severe emotional & physical abuse from ages 18 months to 7 years - although they were severely emotional damages, they received good care & were fully recovered by their teens - this means that lasting harm is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation - the ‘critical’ period is therefore better seen as a ‘sensitive’ period

Question 60

outline the aim & procedure of Schaffer & Emerson (1964) (attachment)

Answer 60

aim: - studied the attachment behaviours of babies to understand how they can change as a baby gets older procedure: - 60 babies - 31 & 29 girls from working class families in Glasgow - researchers visited babies & mothers in their homes every month for the first year & then once again at 18 months - researchers asked mothers questions about how their baby reacted to different everyday separations (separation anxiety) & the baby’s response to unfamiliar people (stranger anxiety) - designed to measure babies’ attachment

Question 61

outline the 4 stages of attachment found by Schaffer & Emerson (1964) (5, 5, 5, 4) (attachment)

Answer 61

stage 1 - asocial stage: - first few weeks of life - observable behaviour towards humans & inanimate objects in very social (so asocial) - Schaffer & Emerson didn’t think this is entirely asocial because babies still show that they prefer to be with other people - also tend to show a preference for the company of familiar people & are more easily comforted by them - baby is forming bonds with certain people & these form the basis of later attachment stage 2 - indiscriminate attachment: - 2-7 months - display more obvious & observable social behaviours - show a clear preference for being with other humans over inanimate objects - also recognise & prefer the company of familiar people - usually accept comfort from any person & don’t show signs of stranger or separation anxiety stage 3 - specific attachment: - around 7 months - majority of babies start to display classic signs of attachment towards one particular person (e.g. stranger & separation anxiety) - baby has formed a specific attachment with the primary attachment figure - this is the person who offers the most interaction & responds to the baby’s signals with the most skill - this was baby’s mother in 65% of cases stage 4 - multiple attachments: - 9 months-1 year or shortly after babies start to show attachment behaviour - attachment behaviours are extended to multiple attachments with other people they regularly spend time with (secondary attachments) - Schaffer & Emerson observed that 29% of children formed a secondary attachment within a month of forming a specific attachment - by age of 1 year majority of babies had developed multiple attachments

Question 62

outline 2 strengths of Schaffer & Emerson (1964) (attachment)

Answer 62

good external validity: - most observations (not stranger anxiety) were made by parents during ordinary activities & was reported to researchers - the alternative would be to have researchers present to record observations, which may have distracted the babies or made them feel anxious - this means that it is highly likely that the Ps behaved naturally while being observed, therefore the results were not influenced by demand characteristics. This makes them more accurate & increases external validity real-world application: - Schaffer & Emerson’s stages of attachment have practical application in daycare (where babies are cared for outside their home by a non-family adult) - in a social & indiscriminate attachment stages daycare is likely to be simple as babies can be comforted by any skilled adult - however this research tells us that daycare (especially starting with an unfamiliar adult) may be problematic during the specific attachment stages day - this means that parent’s use of daycare can be planned using Schaffer & Emerson’s stages, therefore it has high external validity

Question 63

outline 2 weaknesses of Schaffer & Emerson (1964) (attachment)

Answer 63

good external validity CP: - issues with asking mothers to be ‘observers’ - they were unlikely to be objective observers - they may have been biased in terms of what they noticed & reported (e.g. may not have noticed when their baby was showing signs of anxiety) - also may have lied about/falsely reported their baby’s behaviour to make their baby look better, so results may have been affected by social desirability bias & may not be valid - this means that even if the babies behaved naturally, their behaviour may not have been accurately reported, meaning it may lack external validity poor evidence for asocial stage: - limitation in the measures used to assess attachment in the asocial stage - young babies have poor coordination & are fairly immobile - if babies less than 2 months old felt anxiety in everyday situations, they may have displayed this in a subtle/hard to observe way - this makes it difficult for mothers to observe & report back to researchers on signs of anxiety & attachment in this age group - this means that the babies may actually be quite social but because of flawed methods they appear to be asocial, so results may not be accurate

Question 64

what is institutionalisation? (attachment)

Answer 64

- the effects of living in an institution setting (e.g. an orphanage or hospital)

Question 65

outline some background information behind Romanian orphanages (3) (attachment)

Answer 65

- former president of Romania required women to have at least 5 children - many families couldn’t afford to care for them, so many children were put into orphanages that had poor conditions - after the 1989 Romanian revolution many of the children were adopted by families outside of Romania

Question 66

outline the procedure of Rutter et al (2011) (5) (attachment)

Answer 66

- followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans for several years as part of the English & Romanian adoptee (ERA) study - the orphans had been adopted by families in the UK - the aim of the ERA is to investigate the extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions - physical, cognitive & emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11, 15 & 22-25 years - a group of 52 children from the UK adopted around the same time were used as a control group

Question 67

outline the findings of Rutter et al (2011) (8) (attachment)

Answer 67

- when the children first arrived in the UK half of the adoptees shows signs of delayed intellectual development & the majority were severely malnourished - at age 11 the adopted children shows differential rates of recovery that were related to age of adoption - the mean IQ of those children adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, was 86 for those adopted between 6 months - 2 years, & was 77 for those adopted after 2 years of age - these differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al 2010) - ADHD was more common in 15 & 22-25 year old samples (Kennedy et al 2016) - appeared to be a difference in outcome related to whether adoption took place before or after 6 months - children adopted after 6 months shows signs of disinhibited attachment (symptoms = attention seeking, clinginess & social behaviour directed towards unfamiliar & familiar adults) - children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed signs of disinhibited attachment

Question 68

outline the procedure & findings of Zeanah et al (2005) (attachment)

Answer 68

procedure: - conducted the Bucharest early intervention (BEI) project when assessed attachment in 95 Romanian children ages 12-31 months who had spent on average 90% of their lives in institutional care - they were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution - attachment types were measured using the Strange Situation - carers were asked about unusual social behaviours as a measurement of disinhibited attachment findings: - found that 74% of the control group were classes as securely attached in the Strange Situation - only 19% of the institutional group were securely attached - the description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children compared to less than 20% of the control group

Question 69

outline 2 effects of institutionalisation (attachment)

Answer 69

disinhibited attachment: - children who have spent their early lives in an institution often show signs of disinhibited attachment - this is highly unusual behaviour as children in their second year show signed of stranger anxiety - Rutter (2006) explained this is an adaptation to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive period for attachment formation - in poor quality institutions children don’t spend enough time with any caregiver to form a secure attachment intellectual disability: - most of the children in Rutter’s study shows signs of intellectual disability when they arrived in Britain - most that were adopted before 6 months of age caught up with the control group by age 4 - damage to intellectual development can be improved as long as adoption occurs before 6 months (age when attachments form)

Question 70

explain 2 strengths of research into institutionalisation (attachment)

Answer 70

real world application: - application to improve conditions for children growing up outside their family home - studying Romanian orphans has improved understanding of early institutional care - this has led to improvements in the conditions experienced by looked-after children - e.g. children in care often have fewer carers & will have 1 or 2 ‘key workers’ for children to form attachments with - institutional care is also now seen as an undesirable option - this means that children in institutional care have a chance to develop normal attachments & disinhibited attachment is avoided fewer confounding variables: - children from Romanian orphanages had (in most cases) been given up by parents who couldn’t afford to care for them - in other orphanage studies, children had experienced varying degrees of trauma (e.g. neglect, physical abuse, bereavement) - this means that results could rule out other negative experiences that may have affected their development - this means that the results are much less likely to be confounded by other negative experiences so have high internal validity

Question 71

outline 2 limitations of research into institutionalisation (attachment)

Answer 71

fewer confounding variables CP: - studying children from Romanian orphanages may have introduced other confounding variables - the quality of care in these institutions was poor & children received little intellectual comfort or stimulation - this means that harmful effects seen in Romanian orphan studies may represent the effects of poor institutional care rather than institutional care in general lack of adult data: - the latest data from the ERA study looked at the children in their early to mid 20s - this means that there is no data to answer certain research questions about the long term effects of early institutional care - these research questions include the lifetime prevalence of mental health problems & Ps success in forming & maintaining adult romantic & parental relationships - it takes a long time to gather this data because of the longitudinal design - this means that it will be some time before we can fully explore the long term outcomes of institutionalisation

Question 72

how does the internal working model influence later relationships? (4) (attachment)

Answer 72

- if a baby’s first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable attachment figure, they are likely to assume that his is how relationships are meant to be - they will seek out functional relationships & will behave functionally while in them - ie without being too uninvolved for emotionally loose (insecure-avoidant) or being controlling or argumentative (insecure-resistant) - a child with bad experiences of their first attachment will bring these bad experiences to later relationships - this means they may struggle to form relationships in the first place or may not behave appropriately within them (displaying insecure-avoidant or insecure-resistant behaviours towards partners or friends)

Question 73

outline the effects of early attachment on relationships in childhood (6) (attachment)

Answer 73

- attachment type is associated with the quality of peer relationships - securely attached babies tend to go on to form on the best quality childhood friendships whereas insecurely attached babies later have friendship difficulties (Kerns 1994) - bullying behaviour can also be predicted by attachment type - Wilson & Smith (1998) assessed attachment type & bullying involvement using questionnaires in 196 children aged 7-11 years in London - secure children were unlikely to be involved in bullying - insecure-avoidant children were most likely to be victims & insecure-resistant children were most likely to be bullies

Question 74

outline the procedure 7 findings of Hazen & Shaver (1987) research into effects of early attachment on adult relationships (11) (attachment)

Answer 74

procedure: - analysed 620 replies to a love quiz printed in an American local newspaper - the quiz had 3 sections - section 1 = assessed respondents’ current or most important relationship - section 2 = assessed genera love experiences (e.g number of partners) - section 3 = assessed attachment type by asking respondents to choose which of 3 statements best described their feelings findings: - 56% respondents classed as securely attached - 25% classes as insecure-avoidant - 19% classes as insecure-resistant - those with secure attachments were most likely to have good & longer lasting romantic relationships - avoidant respondents tended to reveal jealousy & a fear of intimacy - findings suggest patterns of attachment behaviour are reflected in romantic relationships

Question 75

outline McCarthy (1999) research into the influence of early attachment on later relationships (3) (attachment)

Answer 75

- studied 40 adult women who had been assessed as babies to establish their early attachment type - those assessed as securely attached babies had the best adult friendships & romantic relationships - adults classed at insecure-resistant as babies had particular problems maintains friendships & those classed as insecure-avoidant struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships

Question 76

outline Bailey et al (2007) research into the influence of early attachment on later relationships (5) (attachment)

Answer 76

- assessed the internal working model - considered the attachments of 99 mothers to their babies & own mothers - mother-baby attachment was assessed using the Strange Situation & attachment to their own mothers was assessed using an adult attachment interview - the majority of women had the same attachment classification to both their babies & own mothers - suggests that people tend to base their parenting style of their IMW & so attachment type tends to be passed through generations

Question 77

evaluate the influence of early attachment on later relationships (1+3) (attachment)

Answer 77

research support (S): - reviews of evidence (e.g. Fearon & Roisman 2017) concluded that early attachment consistently predicts emotional attachment, emotional wellbeing & attachment to own children) - strength of relationship between attachment type & later development depends on the attachment type & aspect of later development - while insecure-avoidant attachment has mild disadvantages for any aspect of development, disorganised attachment (lack of consistent patterns of social behaviour. Infants lack a coherent strategy for dealing with stress of separation) is strongly associated with later mental disorder - means that secure attachment as a baby appears to convey advantaged for future development while disorganised attachment appears to seriously disadvantage children research support CP (W): - not all evidence supports the existence of close links between early attachment & later development - e.g. the Regensburg longitudinal study (Becker-Stoll et al 2008) followed 43 individuals from 1 year of age - at age 16 attachment was assessed using the adult attachment interview & there was no evidence of continuity - means that it isn’t clear to what extent the quality of early attachment relay predicts later development (there may be other factors) validity issues (W): - research is assessed retrospectively - most research isn’t longitudinal & researchers usually as adolescent or adult Ps questions about their relationships with parents & use this to identify attachment types - causes several validity issues - 1) asking questions relies on the honest & accurate perception of Ps - 2) it is very hard to know whether what is being assessed is early attachment or adult attachment - means that the measures of early attachment used in most studies may be confounded by other factors, making them meaningless confounding variables (W): - some studies do assess attachment in infancy (e.g. McCarthy 1999) which means the assessment of early attachment is valid - even these studies may have validity issues because associations between attachment quality & later development maybe affected by confounding variables (e.g. parenting style may be influence on attachment quality & later development) - also, genetically influenced personality may also be an influence - means that we can’t be entirely sure it is early attachment & not another factor that is influencing later attachment