attachment content

Question 1

what is reciprocity?

Answer 1

a two-way process mutual interaction, baby and mother both actively contribute, responding to each others actions
e.g., mother laughs, baby laughs
back

Question 2

what is interactional synchrony?

Answer 2

simultaneous interaction, mother and baby mirror each others behaviour e.g both smiling at the same time

Question 3

outline a study on caregiver infant interactions

Answer 3

Meltzoff and Moore

• 40 babies younger than 3 days
• Controls: Sat on mother’s lap, controlled when baby last fed, dummy in mouth
• Stranger models 3 facial expressions ( tongue protrusion, opening mouth, closing mouth)
• Slow motion camera recorded enables accuracy of expression mirrored
• 16/40 frequently mirroring behaviour (IS)
  1/40 did not mirror

• when forming an attachment babies show interactional synchrony

Question 4

outline the strengths and limitations of Meltzoff and Moores study

Answer 4

scientific, controlled procedure, but lacks ecological validity (i own home, may pay less attention to caregivers - toys etc)

unscientific as making inferences (cannot ask babies why they behave that way) unclear if attachment or just imitation (stranger, no attachment)

cultural bias - Kenyan mothers have little
physical interactions or physical
contact with their infants; however,
the infants go on to have secure
attachments (IS not universal) - but only based off one culture in Kenya

Question 5

outline evaluation for caregiver-infant interactions

Answer 5

scientific, controlled procedure
controls
ensures accuracy of babies facial expression (dummy eliminated unwanted)

so babies were mirroring strangers facial expressions.
innate beh - 3 days.
BUT
low EV - IRL could pay less attention to caregivers (toys) may not show IS.

unscientific - inferences
can’t ask infants - inferring that mirroring = attachment.

could just be imitation of adult signals to learn motor movements/ dev facial expressions for communication rather than attachment. (stranger) (S+E - asocial)

but many studies have seen same beh with mothers and infants.

cultural bias
Kenyan mothers- little physical interaction but secure attachment

so IS not shown universally, not necessary interaction in forming secure attachments.

but only comparing one emic study on kenya - could be in most other cultures.
can’t outright reject Meltzoff and Moore conclusion

Question 6

outline the procedure and results of stages of attachments study

Answer 6

Schaffer and Emerson

• 60 infants from Glasgow
• Visited monthly for 1st year, and again at 18 months (longitudinal)

Collected data on:
• Separation Anxiety
• Stranger Distress

used a triangulation of methods; observations of infants & interviews with parents.

• results:
  65% of the main attachment was with the mother
  3% of the main attachment was with the father

However, 75% of infants formed an attachment with the father by 18 months old.

Question 7

describe schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachment

Answer 7

Asocial (0-6 weeks) - Cannot recognise the difference between objects and
faces

Indiscriminate (6 weeks – 6 months)- Recognise the difference between objects and faces, but no separation or stranger anxiety. No attachment.

Specific (7 months onwards) - Demonstrate separation anxiety and stranger distress. Now formed an attachment.

Multiple (10/11 months+) - Develop multiple attachments to others, e.g.
grandparents.

Question 8

outline the evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study

Answer 8

highly scientific and controlled
controlled observation, clear behavioural categories (e.g. crying for anxiety), same procedure to test separation/stranger anxiety. structured interviews.
triangulation of methods used to reduce SD.

strong causation (suggests attachment is biologically innate)

large sample bias
middle-class infants from Glasgow

beh’s could just be particular to parents from middle class Scottish.
Can’t extrapolate to diff collectivist culture or working class.

ethical issues
infants put under mild stress (unable to directly give informed consent) could have been effected by this stress, affecting future development.
but parental consent + mild stress

Question 9

give research for fathers having a role in attachment

Answer 9

• Schaffer and Emerson - 75% of infants studied formed attachment with father at 18 months
• Grossman: father fulfils a different role from mother (play vs emotional support) – important to developing child’s confidence.
• research shows that fathers in single parent family adopt maternal role.

Question 10

give research against fathers having a role in attachment

Answer 10

• schaffer and Emerson - 65% of main attachment was to mother, 3% to father.
• biological differences: female hormone oestrogen underlines caring/ nurturing behaviour - men don’t have it but have testosterone (linked to aggression)
• quality of attachments with father less influential than mother in adolescence. Emotional changes - puberty.

Question 11

outline the economic implications of fathers having a role in attachment

Answer 11

more fathers remain at home and therefore contribute less to the economy (e.g., taxes, impact on nurseries and nursery fees).

more mothers may return to work and
contribute to the economy (e.g., increase
likelihood of higher female salary, taxes).

Gender pay gap may be reduced if
parental roles are regarded as more
equal, or change laws on paternity leave.

Question 12

state the two animal studies in attachment

Answer 12

Lorenz - geese
Harlow - monkeys

Question 13

describe Lorenz’s study on attachment

Answer 13

• IV1: Hatched and first saw biological mother (goose) – control group
• IV2: Hatched and first saw Lorenz – experimental group
• Incubated and controlled who the goslings hatched and saw.
  • Observed how the goslings responded
  • Observed goslings when he mixed the experimental group (Lorenz’s) with the control group

Results:
- Experimental Group = goslings followed and imitated Lorenz within the first 24hrs (critical period)
- Control Group – goslings followed and imitated Goose.

Goslings imprinted on the first thing they see (within the first 24 hours)

Question 14

outline evaluation for Lorenz

Answer 14

strong causal explanation
standardised procedure in incubator
only diff = goose/Lorenz

can be certain goslings imprint on first thing see in critical period of 24h
implies human infants same, attachment = bio

but artificial sitation, could be partial to Lorenz study + goslings in it

but further support for imprinting
- Leghorn chicks, imprinted on yellow rubber glove (exposed from birth). Males later tried to mate.

so imprinting not specific to goslings. explains how attachment develops through imprinting in other precocial species.

but animal studies can’t be generalised to humans. Goslings/ Leghorn chicks = precocial (born mobile, self-sufficient)
humans = altricial (under-developed and require more caregiver infant interaction to survive)

so goslings/chicks may need to imprint to survive.

imprinting not permanent as Lorenz supposed
Lorenz = imprinting irreversible, ‘stamped’ on NS.
imprinting = ‘plastic’
Leghorn chicks mixed - engaged in normal mating beh’s again.

so goslings may not have been given enough time. no fixed and bio critical period as lorenz assumed

RLI - immediate contact e caregiver is important in attachment
e.g. hospital policy changes to immediate skin to skin contact upon birth.

Question 15

describe Harlow’s study on attachment

Answer 15

• 8 Rhesus monkeys placed in cage from birth for 165 days
• cloth + no bottle
• wire + bottle

• Observed the rhesus monkeys proximity to & time spent on the cloth or wire monkey
• Introduced novel stimuli to provoke stress (similar to stranger anxiety) in the monkeys, e.g. a toy bear.

Results
- spent more time on the cloth than wire monkey, irrespective of whether it had a bottle of milk.

• fearful of other rhesus monkeys, had socialisation issues (aggressive behaviour).

Conclusion
• Monkeys attachment occurred because of comfort rather than food.
• This was a long term effect, which could not be reversed.
- not warmth - heated floors

Question 16

outline evaluation on Harlow

Answer 16

strong causal explanation of attachment
same env (cage - wire, cloth)
all taken away at birth (privation)

can say cloth monkey more important in creating secure base. comfort over food.

but small sample size (8). hard to generalise to all mammals (could have been unique factors with those monkeys.
but are evolutionary closer to humans than goslings/chicks. more generalisable.
supported by monkeys showing disinhibited attachment - same as Romanian orphans with privation.

not generalisable to human attachment
evolutionary further from humans than other primates

not dev language unlike humans, so more importance on comfort.
critical period for human attachment seems to coincide with lang dev so communication may be more important than comfort.

but are both altricial
may have more similarities than precocial species
better comparison than lorenz

Harlow criticised for assuming cloth money chosen for comfort

critics argue due to warmth so harlow’s study not accurately testing attachment - monkeys in artificial simplistic env.

but Harlow argued this is invalid - heated floors, if warmth would have laid on floor not cloth monkey.

Question 17

what are the 2 explanations of attachment?

Answer 17

learning theory

Bowlby’s monotropic theory

Question 18

describe the learning theory as an explanation of attachment

Answer 18

two process model: classical conditioning creates attachment, operant maintains it.

classical conditioning:
- Learnt through association by repeated pairings of UCS & NS.
• UCS = UCR (Food = love)
• UCS + NS = UCR (Food + caregiver = love)
• CS = CR
(Caregiver = love)

operant conditioning
- Learnt through consequence

• Positive reinforcement = pleasure from the food (primary reinforcer) increases attachment to the caregiver providing food (secondary reinforcer).
• Negative reinforcement = food removes the hunger drive; thus increasing the attachment to the caregiver (secondary reinforcer) providing the negative reinforcement.

Question 19

outline evaluation of learning theory

Answer 19

lack of research support
evidence of CC from Pavlov’s dogs
not related to attachment. can’t say humans attach due to associating food with their mother.
ignores role of emotion and lang.

reductionist to assume attachment due to cupboard love

Harlow - comfort over food.
learning theory is poor explanation. too simplistic to say only attach to who feeds us.

implication - if LT correct - parents only need to feed children (Genie). this would be neglect to not provide emotional support and social interactions. humans need more than food.

does explain multiple attachments
can attach to whoever feeds us (mother, father, grandparents)
explains how attachments are formed with multiple caregivers.

Unlike Bowlby - assumes maternal caregiver is most important

but assumes attachment is env
ignores role of evolution
if all mammals have need to attach suggests a universal and bio expl.
undermines LT.

Question 20

describe Bowlby’s monotropic theory in explaining attachment

Answer 20

• infants attach to main caregiver - usually mother (monotropy figure) between the ages of 0-18m and up to 2 years (sensitive period)
• This is an envolutionary and innate process that’s important for the infant to feel safe and secure from which to explore the world around them (secure base)
• Mother attaches to the infant during the sensitive period due to big eyes and social cures, e.g. smiling (social releasers)
• This draws out in the mother the need to protect and care for the infant, helping the infant to trust others and feel loved (internal working model)
• the IWM continues into adulthood (continuity hypothesis) and this template enables infants to built future relationships with peers/ intimate partners which are secure and long-lasting.

Question 21

outline evaluation for bowlby’s monotropic theory

Answer 21

research support for innate/critical period
Lorenz - goslings imprinted in critical period. supports attachment being innate - evolved for survival.

but Lorenz proved critical period with precocial animals

Bowlby suggested a more sensitive period (0-18m) as humans = altricial and have more gradual dev

research support for monotrophy figure
Schaffer and Emerson - by 7m old formed main specific attachment to one caregiver. 65% = mother.

supports Bowlby’s theory that it’s the first attachment with one main caregiver that’s most important in developing IWM.
but S+E also said 10-11m = multiple attachments. critiques bowbly - but bowlby accepts multiple attachments but not important in dev secure attachments for healthy future relationships.

research support for continuity hyp
Hazan and Shaver - love quiz
pos correlation between childhood attachment and adulthood attachment

proves attachment type continues into adulthood, affects future relationships as stated in IWM.

secure attachments more likely to have long lasting relationships
insecure - more likely to divorce and have mh issues

but self report, retrospective.
assumes ppl can accurately recall childhood.
hard determinism- can’t change attachment type. will cause mh issues, unhappy relationships.

Question 22

describe Ainsworth’s strange situation

Answer 22

Controlled observation of mother and infant
4 behavioural categories:
• Proximity to caregiver
• Separation anxiety
• Stranger anxiety
• Reunion behaviour

Video recorded using a 9x9 grid on the camera to measure proximity.

The room had 2 chairs and a toy box.

• Used a ‘strange situation’
1. Mothers and infant enter the room. mother chair. Child floor.

2. stranger enters, sits on other chair talks w mother.
3. Stranger approaches infant, attempts to interact and play with them.
4. Mother leaves room.
   stranger + infant.
   stranger comforts infant if upset and offers to play with them.
5. mother returns, stranger leaves.
6. mother leaves, infant alone.
7. The stranger returns to be with the infant, offer comfort and play with the infant.
8. The mother returns to the room again and the stranger leaves.

Question 23

describe the results of Ainsworth’s study

Answer 23

securely attached - 66%, high stranger anxiety, some separation anxiety, but easy to soothe, enthusiastic behaviour at reunion, high willingness to explore

insecure avoidant - 22%, low stranger anxiety, indifferent when separated, high willingness to explore avoid contact at reunion.

insecure resistant - 12%, high stranger anxiety, distressed at separation, behaviour at reunion: seeks and rejects, low willingness to explore.

Question 24

what were the control’s in Ainsworth’s study?

Answer 24

Camera, procedure of comings and
goings, same room & materials,
objective measure of proximity (9x9
grid).

Question 25

outline evaluation for ainsworth’s strange situation

Answer 25

**_Strength – highly controlled observation & high inter-rater reliability_** controls strong causality - shows 3 types of attachment and multiple studies have found similar results (VIK - 18 USA studies) strong inter-rater reliability (0.93) - beh categories operationalised. lack of EV - unfamiliar, diff reactions at home, but lack scientificness **_Criticism – unethical_** infants put under mild stress, through separation and stranger anxiety. some unable to be soothed. Evident in Takahashi’s study in Japan where the parents withdrew their infants due to level of distress. but Ainsworth argued stress = mild - similar to what infants would have in everyday lives. May be true of individualistic cultures but in collectivist cultures (Japan) parents never sep from children so distress not everyday. so she has an imposed etic in design of study. **_Strength - provided support for Bowlby’s monotrophy theory_** securely attached have secure base, willing to explore from. most healthy, having IWM of trusting and feeling loved. so attachment = evolved as Bowbly said to enable secure future relationships in order to pass genes on successfully. but Ainsworth had gender bias (beta bias). Sample only mothers, ignored role of father. Then generalised to all caregivers, minimising the diff. to remove, needed to use both fathers and mothers/ only gen to mothers.

Question 26

describe the procedure of Van Izjendoorn and Kroonenburg’s (VIK) study on cultural variation in attachment

Answer 26

Meta-analysis of 32 studies in 8 countries that used the strange situation. Individualistic = UK, USA, West Germany Collectivist = Japan, Israel, China

Question 27

describe the results of VIK’s study

Answer 27

Secure = universal (ranged from 50% to 75%) similar to Ainsworth’s 66%. IA – highest in individualistic culture (West Germany 35%) IR – highest in collectivist cultures (Japan 27%; Israel 29%) China = anomaly had a 50/50 split of insecure avoidant and resistant attachment type

Question 28

outline evaluation for VIK cultural variations

Answer 28

**_strength:universality in attachment - secure_** (secure attachments were the highest % across all 8 countries - ranged 50-75% - Ainsworth’s 66%) Universal, innate (most common) SS can be gen across world. But imposed etic - method westernised (assumption of separation from caregiver) not case in collectivist cultures. **_criticism: cultural variations_** Ainsworth assumed most common insecure = IA individualistic: IA but collectivist: IR SS doesn’t accurately measure attachment university due to imposed etic. Japan- parents never sep, made children appear IR but novel situation. Supports idea that SS = unethical to apply to collectivist cultures. Takahashi - distress, withdraw. **_criticism: Also within cultural variations in insecure attachments in individualistic cultures_** (Germany = high IA 35%, compared to range of 21-26% in all other individualist cultures) IA attachments not same even within cultures. West Germany encourage and celebrate independence. Ainsworth assumed independence from parents = unhealthy (imposed a US perspective) SS has cultural biases. Should have used indigenous researchers within cultures to design a method to measure attachment to ensure derived rather than imposed etic.

Question 29

describe the procedure of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study

Answer 29

To see if separation caused ‘affectionless psychopathy’. Method: 88 children (5 – 16 years) from a Child Guidance Clinic. 44 were thieves and interviewed for ‘affectionless psychopathy’. 14/44 were then classed as ‘affectionless psychopaths’. 44 had not committed any crimes (control group).

Question 30

outline the results of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study

Answer 30

14/44 affectionless psychopaths 12/14 early and prolonged separation 3/44 control group had early and prolonged separation Disruption of attachment causes later social and emotional problems (long term effects = anti-social behaviour and psychopathy)

Question 31

outline evaluation for Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study

Answer 31

**_Criticism – studies methodology is correlational, self report and retrospective bias_** looked back at adolescents childhood from self-reports from parents. social desirability, inaccurate mem of events. can’t say MD=psychopath as correlational. could be many other factors (poverty, education, SLT crim fam) but not possible for Bowlby to study experimentally - unethical to create MD. but could have done longitudinal study looking at ppl with MD to see if psychopathy rather than other way round. many ppl with MD = law abiding. **_Strength – research support for effects of MD_** Rutter: institutions lower IQ, mh problems, aggression. no disruption in attachment important from monotropy figure in child’s early years. implications for policies of CS of female offenders w infants. But Rutter accused Bowlby of assuming deprivation and privation=same. Effects of MD can be reversed unlike privation - never having attachment more LT effects. **_Criticism – social sensitivity of findings_** role of the maternal figure = most important for preventing psychopathy + anti-social beh (blames women for crim beh of children) removes responsibility on behalf of offender, puts it on mother for mh issues, IQ, anti-social beh diff. working women = feel guilty. implies should say at home. minimises father role. evidence shows women happy at work form better child dev than stressed at home. Bowlby lacks temporal val - theory represents time period where women stayed at home, little appreciation for cultural diff’s (not every child brought up by bio mum)

Question 32

outline the procedure of the romanian orphans study

Answer 32

Quasi experiment Romanian Orphans adopted in the UK (privation), compared to UK adopted in UK. 3 conditions • <6 months (early adoptees) • 6 months – 2years • 2-4 years (late adoptees)

Question 33

explain the results of the Romanian Orphan study’s by 6 years of age

Answer 33

<6 months = 9% Disinhibited attachment, IQ = 106 > 2 yrs = 26% disinhibited attachment; IQ = 77 UK adoptees = 3.8% disinhibited attachment

Question 34

outline the results of the romanian orphan study by 11 years of age

Answer 34

Long term effects more evident in late adoptees Disinhibited Attachment (attention-seeking, inappropriately friendly) low IQ, language skills, Aggression/bullying behaviour, mental health problems.

Question 35

outline the conclusion of the romanian orphan studies

Answer 35

Longer in institution (>2yrs) more long term effects. Longer time spent with adoptive family reversing any effects.

Question 36

outline evaluation for Romanian Orphans.

Answer 36

**_research support: institutionalisation has LT effects_** Hodges and Trizard - 65 UK children in institution. By 16 showed DA problems w peers, bullies, sought attention from adults. privation=LT effects on ability to form peer relationships, low IQ but both had sample bias. Romanian adopted in UK, UK adopted. May just be factors relevant to cultures/attitudes towards learning disabilities and adoption. **_criticism - assumes LT effects=permanent_** Czech twins raised in extreme isolation when mother died in child birth. 7yrs locked up by stepmom. had no lang ability, physically stunted. When placed with aunt, by 14yrs=near normal social and intellectual functioning. 20yrs= above intelligence, excellent relationships. not permanent effects of privation. but twins had each other, attachment with aunts, could be MD instead of privation. **_criticism - Quasi exp-lacks causality_** privation not only factor. IV not manipulated. (unethical to create privation) other factors - reasons for institutionalisation (e.g. learning disabilities, brain damage, neglect/abuse) so reductionist to say only due to institutionalisation. but RLI - could change policies on adoption before 2 years of age - effects of privation could be reversed.

Question 37

describe the method of a study on the influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships

Answer 37

Hazan and Shaver - love quiz Sample: 620 replies to an advertisement in a newspaper. Correlation, comparing early attachment to adulthood attachment Used the ‘love quiz’ – 3 sections: • Assessing respondents’ current or most significant relationship • General love experiences • Assessing attachment type by responding to one of three statements

Question 38

describe the results of Hazan and Shaver’s study

Answer 38

56% of respondents classified themselves as secure • 25% avoidant • 19% resistant Love experience and attitudes towards love (internal working model) were related to attachment type Those who were securely attached: believed love is enduring, had mutual trust and were less likely to get divorced Those who were insecurely attached: felt love was rare, fell in and out of love easily, found relationships less easy, were more likely to be divorced

Question 39

outline evaluation for the influence of early attachment on adult relationships.

Answer 39

**_research support for CH_** Hazan and Shaver supports early attachment continuing into adulthood and shaping future relationships but methodological issues (correlational, lack of causation) (self-report, social desirability) (retrospective- inaccurate mem recall) **_criticism-not all research has found same pos correlation_** reviewed 27 samples. infants assessed in infancy and later reassessed (1m—>2yrs later). low correlation between early childhood and adulthood attachments. so criticises Bowlby - early infancy doesn’t determine our adulthood and future relationship success. **_real life evidence for LT effects of early attachment can be reversed into adulthood_** Rutter: if <6 months for adoption, low IQ and DA reversed. Czech Twins (when adopted age 7yrs, by 20yrs = above average IQ. So early attachments don’t determine LT effects into adulthood - can be reversed through improved attachment figures in lives (adoptive parents) so future relationships can be changed. not determined that ppl will repeat failed ones and get divorced as H + S supposed. can learn from past exp, change attachment type through life.