attachment(paper 1) Flashcards
(22 cards)
Care giver-infant interactions A01:
- Reciprocity:
From birth, infants engage in interactions with caregivers that resemble a two-way conversation.
By around 3 months, both infant and caregiver respond to each other’s verbal and facial signals.
They take turns to interact, showing mutual sensitivity and responsiveness.
This back-and-forth communication supports the development of strong emotional bonds and future attachment. - Interactional Synchrony
Interactional synchrony is when infants mirror a caregiver’s facial expressions or body movements in real time.
Actions are coordinated and occur simultaneously, creating a sense of connection.
Procedure:
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) – Key Study:
nfants aged 2–3 weeks watched an adult perform one of three facial expressions or hand gestures.
A dummy was placed in the infant’s mouth during the observation to prevent immediate imitation.
Once the dummy was removed, the infant’s reactions were recorded on video.
FINDINGS:
Results showed a clear association between the adult’s gesture and the infant’s later imitation, suggesting synchrony occurs from a very early age.
Caregiver-infant interactions A03:
Reliability of Observing Infants
Point: It is difficult to study infant behaviour reliably because babies naturally move their mouths and faces a lot.
Evidence: These natural movements, like yawning or sticking out their tongue, can be mistaken for deliberate imitation.
Explanation: This makes it hard to tell if babies are truly copying adults or just moving randomly, reducing the reliability of conclusions about interactional synchrony.
Link: Therefore, findings about babies’ imitation may not be consistent or accurate across studies.
Observer Blinding Increases Validity
Point: Using blind observers strengthens the validity of studies on infant behaviour.
Evidence: Observers who do not know what the adult model did can’t be biased when recording infant responses.
Explanation: This reduces the chance of observer bias and makes the recorded behaviour more trustworthy.
Link: As a result, the internal validity of research into interactional synchrony is improved.
Interaction Is a Social Response
Point: Babies do not imitate everything they see; their imitation is specifically a social response to humans.
Evidence: When shown inanimate objects performing mouth movements, babies did not imitate those actions.
Explanation: This suggests that interactional synchrony is a meaningful social behaviour, not just random copying.
Link: Thus, this supports the idea that infants respond specifically to people during early interactions.
Not All Babies Show Interactional Synchrony
Point: Not all infants show the same level of interactional synchrony.
Evidence: Some babies display more synchrony than others, often depending on the strength of their relationship with the caregiver.
Explanation: This variability means the findings may not apply to all infants.
Link: Therefore, the research lacks generalisability to all children and contexts.
Schaffer and Emerson stages of attachment A01:
Sample: 60 infants from skilled working-class families in Glasgow
Procedure: Monthly visits for first year, then at 18 months
Mothers asked about infant protest in everyday separations (separation anxiety) and responses to strangers (stranger anxiety)
Findings:
25–30 weeks: ~50% showed separation anxiety to a specific adult (usually mother) – specific attachment formed
40 weeks: 80% had specific attachment, nearly 30% had multiple attachments
Four stages of attachment:
Indiscriminate Attachment (0–2 months): Respond similarly to all(animate or inanimate), but prefer people by end of stage
Beginnings of Attachment (around 4 months): Prefer humans to objects, distinguish familiar/unfamiliar people, no stranger anxiety yet
Discriminate Attachment (around 7 months): Form specific attachment, show separation and stranger anxiety
Multiple Attachments: Attach to several adults, called secondary attachments
Schaffer and Emerson Stages of attachment A03:
Unreliable Data
Point: The data collected from mothers may be unreliable because of social desirability bias.
Evidence: Mothers might underreport their babies’ distress to appear more attentive or caring.
Explanation: This means the reports may not accurately reflect the infants’ true behaviour or attachment responses.
Link: Therefore, the validity of the stages of attachment is weakened because the research might not measure what it intended to.
Biased and Outdated Sample
Point: The sample was limited to a specific social class and historical time, reducing its relevance today.
Evidence: Since then, parental roles have shifted, with more mothers working and fathers becoming primary caregivers.
Explanation: This means the findings may not generalize to families with different dynamics or modern parenting styles.
Link: Consequently, the stages of attachment may lack population and historical validity.
Underestimating Multiple Attachments
Point: The research overemphasizes the importance of one primary attachment figure and undervalues secondary attachments.
Evidence: Some theories suggest that multiple caregivers contribute equally to a child’s attachment.
Explanation: This suggests that the role of secondary attachments in development is more significant than originally thought.
Link: As a result, the model may give an incomplete picture of how attachments form.
Cultural Limitations
Point: The stages of attachment may not apply to all cultures, especially collectivist ones.
Evidence: In collectivist cultures, infants often form multiple attachments at the same time due to shared caregiving.
Explanation: This contrasts with the stage theory that suggests a sequence from single to multiple attachments.
Link: Thus, the stage model reflects individualistic cultural norms and lacks cross-cultural validity.
Role of father in attachment A01:
The Role of the Father in Attachment
Schaffer and Emerson found that fathers are less likely than mothers to be primary attachment figures.
This may be due to biological factors (like lower oestrogen levels affecting sensitivity) or social factors (like gender stereotypes).
However, research has shown that fathers can form secure attachments, especially when they are the primary caregiver.
In two-parent families where the father is the main caregiver, both parents can act as primary attachment figures.
In single-father households, children can still develop secure attachments, showing fathers can provide emotional care.
Fathers often play a different role—typically more focused on play and stimulation, while mothers are often associated with emotional sensitivity.
Role of father in Attachment A03:
- Economic and Social Support
Point: Research into the father’s role helps reduce pressure on mothers to stay home.
Evidence: It shows fathers can balance childcare, easing mothers’ difficult decisions about returning to work.
Explanation: This supports shared parenting and allows both parents to work or care for children as suits their family.
Link: Therefore, it encourages more flexible family roles and reduces stress on mothers. - Supports Diverse Family Types
Point: Research reassures that children don’t need a father specifically to develop well.
Evidence: Studies of lesbian-parent and single-mother families show children develop healthily without a father figure.
Explanation: This challenges traditional views and eases anxiety for non-traditional families.
Link: Thus, the research supports a wider acceptance of different family structures. - Observer Bias Limits Objectivity
Point: Social stereotypes about fathers can bias research observations.
Evidence: Observers may expect fathers to be playful or strict, affecting how they interpret behaviour.
Explanation: This means conclusions about fathers’ roles might reflect cultural ideas, not actual behaviour.
Link: So, it is difficult to draw clear, objective conclusions about the father’s role. - Conflicting Research Questions Cause Confusion
Point: Researchers focus on different roles for fathers, causing unclear findings.
Evidence: Some study fathers as secondary caregivers; others study them as primary caregivers.
Explanation: This inconsistency makes it hard to define the father’s exact role in attachment.
Link: Therefore, the research lacks clarity and does not answer one simple question about fathers.
Animal studies of Attachment A01:
Lorenz (1935) – Animal Studies of Attachment (AO1 Summary)
Imprinting is an innate process where birds form an attachment to the first moving object they see during a critical period (usually within the first few hours after hatching if not exposed to moving obejct then animal will not imprint).
Lorenz randomly divided goose eggs:
Half hatched with the mother (control group)
Half hatched in an incubator and saw Lorenz first (experimental group)
Findings:
Incubator goslings followed Lorenz, control group followed the mother.
When mixed, they continued to follow the figure they had imprinted on.
Lorenz concluded imprinting is:
Irreversible and long-lasting
Affects later mate preferences (sexual imprinting).
Example: A peacock raised with tortoises only courted tortoises in adulthood.
Final AO1 Summary: Harlow (1959)
Harlow studied 8 infant rhesus monkeys for 165 days using two surrogate mothers:
One made of wire, one covered in soft cloth.
Half the monkeys were fed by the wire mother and other half by the cloth mother.
All monkeys spent more time with the cloth mother, even if it didn’t give milk.
When frightened, monkeys clung to the cloth mother, not the one that fed them(obserbation with mechanical teddy bear)
This shows contact comfort is more important than feeding for attachment.
Long-term effects: Monkeys without real mothers became socially and sexually abnormal.
There was a critical period: if they mixed with other monkeys before 3 months, they recovered; after 6 months, damage was irreversible.
Animal studies of Attachment A03:
Lorenz:
1.Point: A weakness is that imprinting may not be permanent.
Evidence: Research has shown that animals can change their attachment to objects over time.
Explanation: For example, chickens that were imprinted on gloves were later able to mate with their own species and imprinting reversible.
Link: This means imprinting may not be fixed, which weakens the idea that it’s a unique or irreversible process.
2.Point:
Animals aren’t predisposed to imprint on a specific object, such as their mother, but on any moving object they see during a critical early period.Evidence:
For example, chicks have been shown to imprint on yellow rubber gloves used to feed them instead of their natural mother.Explanation:
This shows that imprinting is an innate process, but it is flexible regarding the object of attachment, as the chicks do not need to imprint on their biological mother specifically.Link:
Therefore, imprinting helps ensure young animals attach quickly for survival, regardless of the exact object, supporting the idea that imprinting is a natural but adaptable behaviour.
Harlow:
3.Point:
Ethical issues are a concern in animal attachment research.Evidence:
Monkeys in Harlow’s study suffered lasting emotional harm and social difficulties, while young geese imprinted early in life, which could affect their natural behaviours.Explanation:
This raises serious questions about the morality of causing distress or long-term effects to animals for research purposes.Link:
Moreover, animals cannot give consent to participate in studies, adding to ethical concerns. However, some argue that the important knowledge gained about attachment and its application to human care can justify these costs.
4.Generalisation to Humans
Point: There are limitations in generalising animal research to humans.
Evidence: Humans have free will and more complex cognition compared to monkeys.
Explanation: This means human behaviour is influenced by conscious decisions, so animal findings may not fully apply.
Link: Despite this, some human studies support these animal findings, suggesting cautious application is possible.
Confounding Variables
Point: Harlow’s study had a confounding variable affecting validity.
Evidence: The two ‘mothers’ differed not only in cloth covering but also in head design.
Explanation: The monkeys might have preferred the cloth mother due to the more attractive head, not the cloth itself.
Link: Therefore, the study may not have accurately tested contact comfort, reducing internal validity.
Learning theory Explanation of attachment A01:
Learning Theory Explanation of Attachment
General Idea:
Learning theory says all behaviour, including attachment, is learned, not innate.
Babies are born as blank slates and develop attachments through experience.
Classical Conditioning Explanation
Classical conditioning means learning by association.
Food naturally causes pleasure (unconditioned stimulus → unconditioned response).
The caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus.
Through feeding, the caregiver becomes associated with food.
The caregiver becomes a conditioned stimulus that produces pleasure (conditioned response).
This association explains the attachment bond forming between baby and caregiver.
Operant Conditioning Explanation
Operant conditioning means learning through rewards and punishments positive and negative reinforcement
Baby’s crying is an important behaviour that gets reinforced.
When the baby cries, the caregiver responds (usually by feeding).
Feeding rewards the baby (positive reinforcement), encouraging crying to continue when needed.
Caregiver is negatively reinforced because feeding stops the unpleasant crying.
This two-way reinforcement strengthens the attachment.
Learning theory explanation of attachment A01:
1.Point:
A key issue with explanations of attachment based on animal research is the problem of generalisability to humans.Evidence:
Animals often behave through biological preparedness and instinct, such as salivating in response to food, which helps them survive. Their responses are automatic and conditioned.Explanation:
Humans, however, are more cognitively complex and their behaviour is influenced by conscious thought and free will. This means they may not form attachments purely through simple associations or reinforcements like animals do.Link:
Therefore, applying animal-based findings to human attachment may oversimplify the process and reduce its validity.
2.Point:
A limitation of learning theory is that it overemphasises the role of food in forming attachments.Evidence:
Schaffer and Emerson found that many infants formed attachments with caregivers who were most responsive and emotionally available.Explanation:
This suggests that interaction and sensitivity, not feeding, are key to attachment, contradicting the learning theory’s focus on food as the primary reinforcer.Link:
Therefore, learning theory may oversimplify attachment and ignore the emotional and social factors involved.
3.Point:
A major weakness of learning theory is that it claims food is the key factor in forming attachments.
Evidence:
Harlow’s Research with monkeys showed they became more attached to a cloth-covered figure providing comfort than a wire figure offering food.
Explanation:
This suggests that contact comfort plays a more important role than feeding in the development of attachment.
Link:
Therefore, learning theory may oversimplify attachment by focusing too heavily on food as the main reinforcer.
4.Point:
Another weakness of learning theory is that it only explains how attachments form, not why they form.
Evidence:
Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment suggest that attachments evolved as a survival mechanism to keep infants close to caregivers.
Explanation:
This provides a reason for why attachments are necessary, especially in early human history where staying close increased survival.Link:
Therefore, learning theory lacks depth, while evolutionary explanations offer a fuller understanding of attachment behaviour.
Bowlby’s evolutionary theory explanation of attachment A01:
Bowlby’s Evolutionary Explanation of Attachment – AO1 Summary
Attachments are innate and provide an adaptive advantage by increasing the infant’s chances of survival, keeping them close to caregivers for safety, food, and warmth.
Attachment behaviours evolved to protect the infant, inspired by ideas from imprinting and animal studies.
ASCMI Model: Key Parts of Bowlby’s Theory
A – Adaptive:
Attachments give an adaptive advantage by helping infants survive through protection and care.
S – Social Releasers:
Babies have innate behaviours (crying, smiling) and physical features (baby face) that trigger caregiving responses from adults. This interaction is an example of reciprocity.
C – Critical Period:
Attachments must form during a critical window (3-6 months). Failure to attach can cause lifelong social, emotional, intellectual, and physical problems.
M – Monotropy:
Infants form one special, primary attachment (usually to the mother). If unavailable, another consistent adult can take this role.
I – Internal Working Model:
The primary attachment creates a mental template for future relationships. Positive early experiences lead to healthy relationships; negative ones may cause difficulties. It also influences future parenting.
Continuity Hypothesis
Strong early attachments predict social and emotional competence later in life, while weak attachments increase the risk of difficulties.
Bowlby’s evolutionary theory explanation of attachment A03:
- Adaptiveness of Attachment Timing
Point: Bowlby’s theory says attachment develops after 3 months to aid survival, but this may be too late to protect infants.
Evidence: Babies are immobile before this age, so attachment wouldn’t help them avoid danger early on.
Explanation: This questions whether attachment truly evolved for survival from birth, as it may be more useful once babies start moving.
Link: Therefore, attachment might not be as adaptive in early infancy as Bowlby suggests. - Critical Period vs. Sensitive Period
Point: Bowlby claims attachment must form in a strict critical period, or it won’t form at all.
Evidence: However, evidence shows attachments can still develop later, just less easily.
Explanation: This means the “critical period” might actually be a sensitive window, where forming attachment is easier but not impossible outside it.
Link: So, Bowlby’s idea of a rigid critical period may be too inflexible. - Internal Working Model and Future Relationships
Point: Bowlby’s internal working model suggests early attachment determines future relationship success.
Evidence: Yet, some people with poor early care still form healthy relationships later.
Explanation: This challenges the idea that early experiences rigidly set future social outcomes.
Link: This suggests the internal working model might not fully predict adult relationship quality. - Temperament’s Role in Attachment
Point: Bowlby focuses on caregiver influence, but an infant’s temperament also affects attachment style.
Evidence: Some infants have innate emotional traits that influence how they respond to caregivers.
Explanation: This means attachment is shaped by both the infant’s nature and nurture, not just caregiver behaviour.
Link: Therefore, Bowlby’s theory might overlook important biological factors in attachment development.
Ainsworth’s strange situation A01:
Aim:
To observe infant behaviour under mild stress to assess attachment quality and identify attachment types.
Procedure:
Controlled lab observation with separation, stranger presence, and reunion episodes.
Behaviour measured: proximity seeking, exploration (secure base), separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, and reunion response.
Findings – Types of Attachment:
Secure (66%): Happy to explore using caregiver as secure base, moderate separation and stranger anxiety, seeks comfort at reunion.
Insecure-Avoidant (22%): Explores freely without seeking caregiver, little/no separation or stranger anxiety, avoids comfort at reunion.
Insecure-Resistant (12%): Explores less, seeks excessive proximity, intense separation and stranger anxiety, mixed behaviours on reunion.
Ainsworth’s strange situation A03:
- High Reliability
Point: A strength of the Strange Situation is that it has high reliability.
Explanation: The behaviours it measures, like separation and reunion responses, are easy to observe.
Evidence: Different observers watching the same child tend to agree on the attachment type — this is called inter-observer reliability.
Link: This means the method is consistent and trusted, making it a reliable way to assess attachment. - Real-World Application
Point: A strength of the Strange Situation is that it has real-life applications.
Explanation: Research from it has helped develop parenting programmes that teach caregivers to better understand their child’s needs.
Evidence: When caregivers respond more appropriately, children are more likely to develop secure attachments.
Link: This shows the research has made a positive impact beyond the lab by improving children’s emotional development. - Cultural Bias (with Japanese example)
Point: A limitation is that the Strange Situation may be culturally biased.
Explanation: It was developed in the West and uses Western ideas of attachment.
Evidence: For example, Japanese babies are rarely left alone, so when they are separated in the test, they show extreme distress.
Link: This might wrongly classify them as insecure, when really they are securely attached in their cultural context — showing the test may not be valid for all cultures. - Too Simple (with disorganised attachment example)
Point: A limitation is that the Strange Situation may oversimplify attachment.
Explanation: It only describes three types, but not all children fit neatly into these categories.
Evidence: Some show a mix of behaviours, such as seeking comfort but then avoiding it — known as disorganised attachment.
Link: This suggests attachment is more complex than the original types and the method might not fully explain all behaviours.
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Cultural variations in attachment A01:
Cultural Variations in Attachment (AO1)
Collectivist vs Individualist Cultures
Collectivist cultures value the group, interdependence, and shared childcare.
Individualist cultures value independence and focus on the individual.
Cross-Cultural Attachment Patterns
Research shows secure attachment is the most common type across all countries studied.
The highest rates of insecure-avoidant attachment are found in Germany.
The highest rates of insecure-resistant attachment are found in Israel.
Overall, variations within cultures are greater than variations between cultures.
Examples of Cultural Similarities
Even in collectivist cultures with shared caregiving (e.g., the Efe tribe in Africa), infants still form a primary attachment to their mother.
Examples of Cultural Differences
In Germany, infants often appear insecurely attached (insecure-avoidant) due to cultural emphasis on interpersonal distance and less proximity-seeking behavior.
In Japan, infants show high rates of insecure-resistant attachment and are very distressed when separated from their mother, reflecting rare separation experiences in their culture. Insecure-avoidant attachment is rare here.
Conclusion
Despite cultural differences, the strongest attachment is usually to the mother.
Differences in attachment patterns reflect different child-rearing practices and cultural attitudes.
Van ijzendoorn and Kroonberg cultural variations in Attachment A03:
- Similarities May Not Be Innate
Point: Attachment similarities across cultures might not be biological.
Explain: Global influences like the media may shape how parents raise children everywhere.
Example: Because of this, children might develop secure attachments due to similar cultural messages, not just biology.
Link: So, attachment patterns might come from shared culture, not just innate factors. - Nation vs Culture Problem
Point: Research often compares countries, not specific cultures.
Explain: Different groups within the same country can have very different parenting and attachment styles.
Example: For example, city and countryside families in one country may show different attachment types.
Link: This means findings about cultural differences should be treated with caution. - – Imposed Etic (Method Bias)
Point: The research method may be biased because it was designed in one culture and applied to others.
Explanation: The Strange Situation was created based on Western ideas, like independence meaning secure attachment.
Example: In Japan, dependence is seen as a sign of security, so children might be wrongly labelled insecure by Western standards.
Link: This means the method may not accurately measure attachment in all cultures, lowering the validity of cross-cultural studies.
PEEL 4 – Cultural Bias (Theory Bias)
Point: Attachment theories themselves are based on Western cultural values, which may not apply everywhere.
Explanation: Concepts like being emotionally independent and exploring are seen as healthy in the West but not in all cultures.
Example: In Japan, being emotionally close and depending on the group is valued, so judging children by Western ideas can be misleading.
Link: This shows that using Western theories to interpret behaviour in other cultures can cause misunderstandings about attachment.
Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation AO1
Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation (AO1)
Bowlby argued that children need a warm, continuous, and intimate relationship with a mother or mother substitute for healthy emotional development.
Separation from the mother during a critical period (up to about 2.5 years), without a substitute caregiver, can cause emotional problems.
Emotional deprivation can lead to affectionless psychopathy—a condition where individuals cannot feel guilt or empathy, which is linked to criminal behaviour.
Long-term consequences of deprivation may include emotional maladjustment or mental health problems like depression.
The 44 Thieves Study
Bowlby studied 88 children: 44 ‘thieves’ and 44 non-criminal controls.
He assessed the children for signs of affectionless psychopathy and gathered information about prolonged maternal separation during early childhood.
Results showed 14 of the thieves were affectionless psychopaths, and 12 of these had experienced early maternal separation.
Only 2 of the control group had experienced separation, and none were affectionless psychopaths.
This supported the idea that early maternal deprivation is linked to later emotional and behavioural problems.
Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation AO3:
PEEL 1 : Real-World Impact on Childcare
Point: Bowlby’s research had a major impact on how children are cared for, especially in hospitals.
Explanation: Before, children were often separated from parents with strict visiting rules, which was harmful because it caused emotional distress and attachment problems.
Example: After Bowlby’s findings, hospitals changed policies to allow parents more access to their children.
Link: This shows Bowlby’s theory has had positive practical effects beyond theory, improving child wellbeing.
PEEL 2: Overly Simplistic Definition of Deprivation
Point: Bowlby’s concept of deprivation is too simple and ignores important differences.
Explanation: It doesn’t distinguish between children who never formed attachments (privation) and those whose attachments were broken (deprivation).
Example: Children who never had an attachment bond tend to have worse outcomes than those whose bond was lost.
Link: This weakens the theory because it fails to clearly explain different causes of emotional problems.
PEEL 3: Differences in How Children Are Affected
Point: The impact of maternal deprivation varies between children.
Explanation: Children with secure attachments cope better with separation than those who were insecurely attached.
Example: Secure children are less distressed, showing resilience not accounted for by Bowlby’s theory.
Link: This suggests Bowlby’s view that deprivation affects all children similarly is too general.
PEEL 4: Emotional Separation Also Causes Deprivation
Point: Emotional separation can cause deprivation even if the caregiver is physically present.
Explanation: Children may be emotionally deprived if a caregiver is emotionally unavailable or unresponsive.
Example: This shows that physical presence alone doesn’t guarantee healthy emotional development.
Link: Bowlby’s focus on physical separation(ie loss of parent or seperation due to CPS(child protection services) misses this important aspect of deprivation.
Romanian Orphan Studies: Effects of Institutionalisation A01:
- Institutionalisation
Institutionalisation refers to the effects of living in an institutional setting, such as an orphanage, where children often experience emotional and physical neglect. This can result in long-term developmental issues affecting physical, cognitive, social, and emotional functioning. - ERA Study (English and Romanian Adoptees)
The ERA study tracked Romanian orphans adopted into the UK. On arrival, they were physically smaller, cognitively behind, and socially underdeveloped compared to British adoptees.
Adopted before 6 months: Often fully recovered.
Adopted after 6 months: Continued difficulties, especially with peer relationships.
Many showed disinhibited attachment, where they were overly friendly and attention-seeking with both familiar people and strangers. This is likely due to frequent changes in caregivers preventing secure attachment formation.
3. Effects of Institutionalisation
-Physical underdevelopment: Often seen as deprivation dwarfism, linked to neglect.
-Intellectual underfunctioning: Emotional neglect can lead to cognitive delays.
-Disinhibited attachment: Insecure pattern marked by indiscriminate friendliness.
-Poor parenting: Those who were institutionalised often struggle to parent effectively in adulthood, likely due to a lack of early secure attachment models.
Romanian Orphan Studies: Effects of Institutionalisation A03:
- Real-life applications
Point:
A strength of institutionalisation research is that it has practical benefits.
Evidence:
It shows the importance of forming attachments within a sensitive period early in life.
Explanation:
This has led to changes in adoption practices, such as encouraging earlier adoption, helping children form secure attachments and develop normally.
Link:
This means the research has had a direct positive impact on improving children’s lives. - Individual differences
Point:
A criticism is that not all children are affected by institutionalisation in the same way.
Evidence:
Some children recover well despite poor early experiences, possibly due to individual traits makign them receive special attention in the insitution or limited positive care in institutions.
Explanation:
This shows that the effects of institutional care are not universal and that children can recover from negative effects of institutionalisation - Value of longitudinal studies
Point:
A strength is that many studies follow children over a long period of time.
Evidence:
This helps track whether the effects of institutional care are long-lasting or improve with time.
Explanation:
Without this approach, we might wrongly assume that negative effects are permanent. However, these studies show that effects may disappear after sufficient time and with suitable high-quality care.
Link:
Long-term research gives a more valid picture of how children develop after institutionalisation. - Deprivation is only one factor
Point:
A limitation is that emotional deprivation isn’t the only issue affecting the orphans’ development.
Evidence:
Children in Romanian institutions also experienced poor physical conditions, low levels of stimulation, and a lack of consistent caregivers.
Explanation:
These multiple risk factors — not just lack of attachment — may have led to delayed development. It’s hard to isolate the effects of deprivation alone. This makes it difficult to know whether attachment problems were caused by institutionalisation or by the wider environment.
Link:
This means we should be cautious when drawing conclusions from orphan studies, as many overlapping factors could influence the outcomes.
Influence of Early Attachments on Later Relationships Evaluation AO1
The Influence of Early Attachment
Internal Working Model & Continuity Hypothesis
(As previously defined in Bowlby’s theory: the internal working model is a mental template based on early caregiver relationships, influencing expectations in later relationships. The continuity hypothesis states that strong early attachments lead to better social and emotional competence later in life, while weak attachments predict difficulties.)
Adult Romantic Relationships
A study with 620 adults used a questionnaire to assess current relationships, attachment history, and attitudes towards love (internal working model). Findings showed:
56% were securely attached
25% insecure-avoidant
19% insecure-resistant
Securely attached individuals reported happier, longer-lasting romantic relationships and positive views of love. Insecure-avoidant participants showed jealousy and fear of intimacy, while insecure-resistant participants were insecure and clingy. This supports the idea that early attachment influences adult romantic relationships through the internal working model.
Childhood Social Relationships
Early attachment also affects childhood social development. Children securely attached in infancy tend to be more popular, empathetic, and less isolated in later childhood friendships. Secure attachment fosters positive expectations of others, making social interactions easier.
Bullying Behaviour
Attachment style predicts bullying involvement: securely attached children are rarely involved, insecure-avoidant children are more likely to be victims, and insecure-resistant children are more likely to be bullies.
Mental Health
Children who lack attachment during critical periods fail to develop an internal working model, leading to attachment disorders characterized by difficulties in forming relationships and social interaction problems.
Influence of Early Attachments on Later Relationships Evaluation AO3
- Research is Correlational
Point: The research linking early attachment and later relationships only shows a connection, not cause and effect.
Evidence: Studies find relationships between early attachment and adult relationships but don’t prove one causes the other.
Explanation: This means other factors, like personality or life experiences, might actually influence both early attachment and adult relationships. We can’t say early attachment causes relationship outcomes.
Link: So, we should be cautious about assuming the internal working model directly determines adult relationships. - Retrospective Classification
Point: Research relies on adults remembering their early attachments, which may be inaccurate.
Evidence: Adults’ memories can be biased/flawed or influenced by social desirability — wanting to give a “good” impression.
Explanation: This means the data might not truly reflect early attachment experiences, lowering the study’s int. because its measuring adult perceptions or demand characterisitics
Link: Therefore, findings about early attachment’s influence on adult relationships may not be fully reliable. - Overly Deterministic
Point: Some research wrongly suggests early attachment fixes the future of adult relationships.
Evidence: Many people with insecure attachments in infancy still develop happy, healthy relationships later on.
Explanation: This shows early attachment is not a strict predictor and people can change how they relate to others.
Link: Thus, early attachment shouldn’t be seen as the only factor controlling future relationships.
4.Research Support
Point: There is evidence that early attachment influences later social and romantic relationships.
Evidence: Research found that individuals securely attached in infancy showed better social skills as children, closer friendships during adolescence, and stronger emotional bonds in adult romantic relationships.
Explanation: This suggests early attachment helps form internal models that guide positive interactions throughout life.
Link: Therefore, early attachment likely plays a key role in shaping the quality of later relationships.
