The Influence Of Early Attachment On Later Relationships. Flashcards
Bowlby’s internal working model.
A child’s first relationship with their primary attachment figure forms a mental representation of this relationship (their IWM) which acts as a template for future relationships (and provides continuity of attachment type). The quality of this first attachment is crucial because this template will affect the nature of future relationships.
A child whose first attachment is reliable and loving will assume that this is how relationships are meant to be. They will then seek out functional relationships and behave functionally within them i.e. have an appropriate level of involvement and emotionally closeness.
A child whose first attachment is unreliable and neglectful will bring these experiences to later relationships. They may struggle to form relationships or they may not behave appropriately within relationships, displaying avoidant or resistant behaviour towards friends and partners.
Relationships in childhood
Attachment type is associated with the quality of peer relationships in childhood and involvement in bullying:
• Securely attached infants tend to go on to form the best quality childhood friendships and are very unlikely to be involved in bullying.
• Insecurely attached infants later have friendship difficulties and insecure-avoidant children were the most likely to be victim of bullying and insecure-resistant children were most likely to be bullies.
Describe Myron-Wilson’s and Smith’s study (1998) into bullying.
They assessed attachment type and involvement in bullying using questionnaires in 196 children aged 7 to 11 from London.
What did they find?
They found:
-Secure – least likely involved in bullying
– Avoidant – likely to be the victim of bullying
– Resistant – most likely to be the bully
Relationships in adulthood:
1. As a romantic partner.
McCarthy (1999) studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when they were infants to establish their early attachment type. They found:
• Securely attached infants had the best adult friendships and romantic relationships.
• Insecure-resistant infants had problems maintaining friendships.
• Insecure-avoidant infants struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships.
This suggests Bowlby’s internal working model is correct and valid as it shows people based relationships on their first attachment relationship.
What did Hazan and Shaver (1987) investigate?
investigated the association between attachment and adult relationships.
What was their procedure?
Analysed 620 replies to a three section ‘love quiz’ printed in an American newspaper. The first section assessed their current or most important relationship. The second part assessed general love experiences e.g. number of partners. The third section assessed attachment type by asking respondents to choose which of three statements best described their feelings.
What did they find?
• 56% of respondents were securely attached, 25% insecure-avoidant and 19% insecure-resistant.
• Secure respondents were the most likely to have good and longer lasting romantic experiences. (~6% had experienced divorce)
• Insecure-avoidant respondents tended to reveal jealousy and fear of intimacy. (~12% had experienced divorce)
• Insecure-resistant respondents tended to reveal obsessiveness and jealousy. (~10% had experienced divorce)
What did he conclude?
Supports the IWM that the primary attachment type acts as a template for future relationships.
Relationships in adulthood
2. As a parent.
People base their parenting style on their IWM, so attachment type tends to be passed down through generations.
Baily et al (2007) studied this.
What was his procedure?
Measured the attachment of 99 mothers to their babies and to their own mothers. Mother-baby attachment was assessed using the strange situation and mother-own mother attachment was assessed using an adult attachment interview.
What did he find?
The majority of women had the same attachment classification both to their babies and their own mothers.
What did he conclude?
Supports the IWM that the primary attachment type acts as a template for future relationships.
Evaluation point 1:
(-) Reliability
Some studies (e.g. McCarthy) demonstrate continuity of attachment type and support internal working models. However, others do not: Zimmerman (2000) assessed infant attachment type and adolescent attachment to parents and found very little relationship between quality of infant and adolescent attachment. This is a problem as the evidence is inconsistent suggesting the internal working model theory is unreliable suggesting it’s less likely to be correct.
Evaluation point 2:
(-) Validity
Most studies of attachment assess infant-parent attachment by means of interview or questionnaire. Self report techniques are likely to lead to social desirability bias as participants may give answers that make themselves look better rather than the truth. Additionally, participants may not remember clearly their relationship. Therefore findings may not accurately reflect the correct attachment type. We therefore cannot use these findings to make accurate conclusions about the influence of early attachment on later relationships.
Evaluation point 3:
(-) Cause and effect
Infant attachment type is correlated with the quality of later relationships, but this is not necessarily causal. Other factors such as parenting style or temperament might have a direct effect on both attachment and the ability to form relationships with others. Therefore, we cannot be sure if Bowlby’s IWM is accurate and is causing later outcomes.
Evaluation point 4:
Probabilistic
Clarke and Clarke (1998) suggest that a poor attachment in early childhood does not necessarily mean the individual is doomed to have bad relationships, they are just at a greater risk of problems. They argue that it is too pessimistic and negative. If poor attachment does not lead to future negative relationships then this suggests that Bowlby’s internal working model is incorrect.
Evaluation point 6:
(-) Methodological issues
Asking people to report about their internal working models is problematic as these models are supposed to be unconscious. This means that we cannot be sure that evidence is reliable as people can only report what they are aware of as people are relying on their conscious understanding.
