attachment

caregiver-infant interactions

attachment - formation of a strong reciprocated, emotional bond between an infant and primary caregiver
reciprocity - interactions between infant and caregiver are mutual, both are actively contributing and responding to each other
interactional synchrony - the temporal coordination of micro level social behaviour, two people are synchronised when they carry out the same action simultaneously, mirroring each others actions, Isabella et al found higher synchrony = better attachment when assessing 30 mothers and their children, Meltzoff and Moore found babies copied parents/caregivers facial expressions as early as minutes after birth

strength - the caregiver-infant interactions are normally filmed and observed in a laboratory, can control extraneous variables that would otherwise distract the baby, babies don't know they're being observed so behaviour doesn't change, inter-rater reliability as it's recorded

weakness - difficulty observing babies, hard to interpret their behaviour, lack coordination and their bodies are mostly immobile, cannot be certain that a minor movement is random/unintentional or a response to the caregiver. observing a baby doesn't tell us it's developmental importance, Feldman claims that ideas such as synchrony/reciprocity are just patterns of observable caregiver-infant behaviours, doesn't tell us the purpose of the behaviours, cannot be certain from observations only that reciprocity/synchrony are important for a baby's development

Schaffer's stages of attachment

1. asocial/preattachment stage - first few weeks after birth, baby acts similarly to animate and inanimate objects
2. indiscriminate attachment - 2 to 7 months, recognises people, still no attachments
3. specific attachment - 7 to 12 months, forms primary attachment, separation anxiety, stranger anxiety
4. multiple attachments - 1 year+, secondary attachments formed

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) studied 60 babies, 31 male 29 female, all from Glasgow, skilled working class families, researchers visited mothers and babies every month for 12 months and then again at 18 months, parents were asked to observe and keep a diary to report back to researchers, longitudinal study, assessed separation and stranger anxiety. found that between 25 to 32 months 50% of babies showed separation anxiety, at 40 weeks almost 30% formed multiple/secondary attachments, primary caregiver was the one who reciprocated more

strength - schaffer and emerson's research is external validity, can be generalised to other situations, most the observations were made during ordinary activities, natural. practical real world application for day care, in stages 1 and 2 day care is likely to be easier as any person can comfort the child, might be more difficult for the later stages, therefore parents can plan day care based on the stages of attachment

weakness - however, having mothers be the observers meant they were unlikely to be objective, may be biased in what they observe and record, might not notice baby showing signs of anxiety or just didn't record it, even if babies behave naturally it might not be recorded. poor evidence for asocial stage, young babies have poor coordination and therefore if they do feel anxiety it may be very hard to notice, this means babies may acc be social but we just cannot tell

Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation

maternal deprivation - being separated from a mother during early childhood causes emotional and intellectual consequences, continuous care from a parent is necessary for normal psychological development, prolonged separation from this parent may cause serious damage
separation vs deprivation - separation = child not in presence of caregiver, deprivation = child is deprived of emotional care, extended separation can lead to deprivation
critical period - first two and a half years are a critical period for psychological development, if a child is deprived of emotional care during this time then psychological damage in inevitable, continuing risk up to the age of 5

effects on development:
1. intellectual - delayed development, abnormally low IQ, Goldfarb found lower IQ in children living in institution compared to those living in foster families
2. emotional - Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy, inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others, lack remorse, hard to form normal relationships, associated w criminality

Bowlby's 44 thieves study - examined link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation, sample consisted of 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing, interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy (lack of affection, guilt, empathy for their victims), families also interviewed to see if the thieves had experienced prolonged separation during early childhood, compared to a control group of 44 non criminals but still emotionally disturbed teens. Bowlby found that 14 of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths, of these 12 had experienced prolonged separation, in contrast only 5 of the remaining 30 thieves had experienced separation, only 2 in the control group experience separation

strength -

weakness - flawed evidence, Bowlby carried out the interviews on the teens and their families, bias as he knew in advance which ones showed signs of psychopathy, Bowlby was influenced by Goldfarb's study on wartime orphanages had confounding variables as the kids experienced early trauma as well as prolonged separation. deprivation and privation, confusion between experiences, deprivation = loss of primary caregiver after attachment has formed, may take place when children are brought up in institutional care, the long term damage observed by Bowlby is more likely a result of privation, similarly many of the 44 thieves had disrupted early life so they never formed strong attachments. most replications of the 44 thieves study failed to show same results. critical vs sensitive periods

Romanian orphan studies

institutionalisation - the effects if living in an institutional setting where ppl live for long periods of time eg. hospital or orphanage, in these places there's very little emotional care
Rutter et al (2011) followed a group of 165 romanian orphans over multiple years as part of the english and romanian adoptee study (ERA study), study was to see if good care can make up for poor early experiences in institutions, physical cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11, 15, 22-25, compared to a group of 52 UK children adopted around the same time. Rutter et al found that when the kids first arrived in the UK they were severely undernourished and had delayed intellectual development, mean IQ of control group adopted before 6 months of age was 102 compared to those adopted after 7 months to 2 years which was 86 and 77 for those adopted after 2 years. children adopted after 6 months showed an attachment style called disinhibited attachment (symptoms include attention seeking, clinginess, no difference in social behaviour to family/strangers), children adopted before 6 months rarely showed this attachment style

effects of institutionalisation:
1. disinhibited attachment - Rutter explained disinhibited attachment as an adaption to living w multiple caregivers during the critical period, don't show stranger anxiety
2. intellectual disability - most romanian children showed this when they first came to the UK (previously called retardation), most of those adopted before 6 months old had caught up w the control group by age 4

strength - real world application, improve conditions for children growing up outside their family home, romanian orphan studies meant there's now improvements in the institution system, chance to develop normal attachments now. fewer confounding variables, many children in the romanian orphan study experienced varying degrees of trauma, difficult to separate effects of neglect, physical abuse and bereavement (grief), much less likely to be confounded by other negative experiences as they has such extreme trauma

weakness - lack of adult data, latest data from ERA study shows the ppts in their early 20s, don't currently have data to answer long term questions, longitudinal study, it will take some time before we know completely what the long term effects are. social sensitivity, late adopted children had lower intelligence generally, this data was published as they were growing up, teachers/family/friends may change their opinion of the person based off this info

role of the father

doesn't have to be the biological father, majority of babies attach to the mother at about 7 months, only 3% of cases have the father as the primary attachment, 27% cases the father was the joint first attachment along w the mother, 75% of babies formed attachment w father by ~18 months (shown by babies protesting when father walks away)
Grossman et al (2002) conducted a longitudinal study, babies attachments studied into their teens, looked at both parents behaviour and its relationship to the child's attachments later in life, quality of babies attachment w mothers is related to rs in adolescence, therefore attachment to fathers is less important, however quality of fathers play w the baby is related to adolescent attachments - fathers have different role to mothers, more to do w play and stimulation rather than emotional development

strength - can be used to offer advice to families, reassure heterosexual couples that the father can take on an emotional role rather than just the mother, can also reassure lesbian couples that the lack of a father will not hinder their child's development

weakness - confusion over questions asked 'what is the role of the father?' very vague, face validity but is much more complex, researchers either want to understand fathers as the primary or secondary attachment, confusion over this. conflicting evidence, grossman et al longitudinal study suggests that fathers have an important role as a secondary attachment, however if fathers have such an important role then we'd expect these children to turn out differently to single mother or lesbian households, which is not true - question about distinct role of the father remains unanswered. lacks external validity, only studied heterosexual couples, what about children growing up in a gay household w two fathers

animal studies - Lorenz + Harlow

imprinting - Lorenz (1952) randomly divided a batch of goose eggs, half hatched w the mother in the natural environment, other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was lorenz, incubator group followed him everywhere, control group followed the mother. bird species that are mobile from birth attach to the first moving object they see (imprinting), lorenz found critical period where imprinting must take place, can be as brief as 3 hours after birth, if imprinting doesn't occur within the critical period then the chicks won't attach to the mother figure
sexual imprinting - lorenz also studied rs between imprinting and adult mate preferences, found that a peacock who imprinted on a huge tortoise in a zoo was sexually attracted to the tortoise later in its life

Harlow's monkeys - (1958) a soft object serves as some of the functions of a mother, kept 16 monkeys with two wire model 'mothers', one was a wire monkey that dispensed milk, the other was a cloth monkey that dispensed milk - found that monkeys cuddled the cloth monkey in preference to the wire one, sought comfort from it when scared regardless of which monkey dispensed milk, therefore contact comfort is more important that food to monkeys
critical period - for normal development, the mother had to be introduced to the monkey within 90 days of birth
maternally deprived monkeys as adults - had severe, permanent consequences, monkeys that developed w only the wire monkey were more dysfunctional, those w the cloth mother were still abnormal: more aggressive and less sociable than other monkeys, when they became mothers some of them neglected, killed or attacked their children

strength - lorenz study is support, controlled lab experiment. although human attachment is different to birds, the idea of imprinting explains some human behaviour

weakness - cannot really generalise findings from birds to humans, attachment in mammals is very different and more complex than in birds, in mammals it's a two way process, and the mothers show emotion, not appropriate to generalise to humans

strength - real world application to social workers and clinical psychologists, helps them understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk in a child's development, harlow's research isn't just theoretical but also practical.

weakness - cannot easily generalise monkeys behaviour to humans, monkeys are more similar to humans than birds and mammals share common attachment behaviours, but humans are still more complex, would be unethical to redo the study on humans

explanations of attachment

learning theory - Dollard and Miller (1950) caregiver-infant interactions can be explained by learning theory, emphasizes importance of attachment figure as a provider of food
classical conditioning - caregiver starts as neutral stimulus, they provide food and overtime become associated w food, conditioned stimulus, infant now gives conditioned response to caregiver eg pleasure/love, attachment formed
operant conditioning - explains why babies cry for comfort, crying causes response from caregiver eg feeding, if caregiver gives correct response then the crying is reinforced, two way process, caregiver has negative reinforcement as the crying stops, mutual reinforcement strengthens attachment
hunger is thought to be a primary drive, we're motivated to eat to reduce the hunger drive, attachment is a secondary drive learned by associating the caregiver w food

Bowlby's monotropic theory - Bowlby (1988), evolutionary explanation, forming attachments is an innate system that gives a survival advantage, attachment evolved as a mechanism to keep young animals safe as they stay close to adult caregivers
monotropic theory - emphasis on attachment to one figure, the longer the baby spends w the primary attachment figure the better the attachment is, two principles to clarify this:
law of continuity - more constant and predictable child care = better quality of attachment
law of accumulated separation - effects of every separation from the mother add up, therefore they shouldn't be separated at all

strength - unlikely that food plays main role in attachments but conditioning does, baby may associate feeling of being warm and comfortable w a specific adult, may influence baby's choice of main attachment figure

weakness - counter evidence from animal studies, Lorenz's geese attached to the first moving object they saw regardless of food, similarly, harlow's monkeys showed attachment to the cloth monkey instead of the wire one w food, therefore attachments aren't formed solely around food association. schaffer and emerson found babies tended to form attachment to mother even if she isn't the one who normally feeds them.

social releasers - behaviours which purpose is to activate adult social interaction thus creating an attachment eg. smiling, cooing, gripping adults finger
critical period is ~6 months, bowlby described it more as a sensitive period, child is more sensitive between 6 months and 2 years old, if attachment isn't formed in this time then it'll be much harder for them to form one later
internal working model - child forms mental representation of their rs w attachment figure, a child whose caregiver interactions are very loving will expect the same from their attachments in the future, similar w poor primary attachments, ppl tend to base their parenting off of how they were parented

weakness - concept of monotropy lacks validity, most babies attach to one primary caregiver but not all, some attach to multiple at the same time, first attachment has significant effect on later relationships but this just means it's stronger and not necessarily different from other attachments as other attachments can provide the exact same thing as primary cg. however, other factors influence mothers attachment w their child, eg anxiety or sociability will affect social behaviours towards child therefore researchers overstated the importance of internal working model

strength - support for social releasers, Brazelton observed babies trigger interaction w releasers, when the primary figures didn't respond to the releasers the babies became more distressed and lay motionless. internal working model predicts patterns of attachment will be passed on through generations, Bailey et al (2007) studied 99 mothers and their attachment w their 1 year old baby, found that mothers w a poor attachment to their own primary caregiver meant a poorer attachment w their child

types of attachment

Ainsworth's strange situation - (1970) controlled observation procedure to measure the security of attachment, controlled lab setting w two way mirror or cameras so psychologists can observe behaviour, the behaviours used to judge attachment were:
proximity seeking - how close baby stays to caregiver
exploration and secure base behaviour - gd attachment means baby feels confident to explore, caregiver is a secure base that makes them feel safe
stranger anxiety - displays anxiety when stranger comes near
separation anxiety - protests separation from caregiver
response to reunion - secure attachments greet caregiver w pleasure and seek comfort

procedure (each stage lasts 3 mins):

  1. baby is encouraged to explore
  2. stranger comes in, talks to caregiver and approaches baby
  3. caregiver leaves the baby and stranger together
  4. caregiver returns and stranger leaves
  5. caregiver leaves baby alone
  6. stranger returns
  7. caregiver returns and is reunited w baby
    findings:
    secure attachment = explore happily but regularly go back to caregiver, show moderate separation and stranger anxiety, require and accept comfort from caregiver in reunion stage, 60-75% of british babies are secure
    insecure avoidant = explore freely, don't seek secure base, no reaction when parent leaves, no stranger anxiety, makes little effort to contact w caregiver when they return, 20-25% of british babies
    insecure resistant = explore less, high levels of stranger and separation stress, distress yet resist comfort when caregiver returns, 3%

strength - good predictive validity, predicts babies later development, secure tends to develop better, better achievements in schl and less involved in bullying, better mental health in adulthood also (Ward et al). good reliability, covert, inter rater reliability, Bick et al, team of trained observers agreed on 94% of the attachment results, the stress behaviours are large and easy to observe

weakness - might not acc measure attachment, could just show genetically influenced anxiety levels. not a valid measure of attachment in other cultures, only valid for western cultures, collectivist cultures such as japan showed higher levels of anxiety, not because of insecure attachment but because separation from the mother is very rare

cultural variations in attachment

van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg (1988) - wanted to see proportion of attachment types across countries based off strange situation. they found 32 studies of attachment conducted in 8 countries, 15 of those were in the USA, overall studies were for 1990 children, meta analysis of the 32 studies
found that in secure was most common in all countries, proportion varied from 75% in britain to 50% in china, individualistic cultures showed similar results for insecure resistant to the original study (14%), collectivist samples from china, japan, israel showed rates above 25% (where insecure avoidant was reduced)

strength - most the follow up studies were conducted by indigenous researchers from the same cultural background as the ppts, this eliminates cross cultural misunderstandings such as misinterpreting the language or difficulty giving ppts instructions, as well as getting rid of any bias towards their culture stereotypes, higher validity

weakness - confounding variables, studies in different countries aren't matched on methodology when they're compared for meta analysis, sample characteristics like poverty, social class, age can confound results, babies may also explore smaller rooms w brighter toys more, not all rooms will be identical. imposed etic, imposing test designed for one culture onto others (emic - cultural uniqueness, etic - cross cultural universality) eg in uk or us, a lack of affection when reunited w parent indicates insecure avoidant, but in germany is shows independence, the behaviours measured have different meanings in different countries

influence of early attachment on later relationships

internal working model works as a template for infants future attachments, insecure avoidant will be too uninvolved or emotionally closed, insecure resistant will be controlling or argumentative
relationships in childhood - securely attached babies had better friendships. wilson and smith gave 196 7-11 year olds a questionnaire to assess their attachment types and bullying involvement, secure = uninvolved in bullying, resistant = bullies, avoidant = victims
relationships in adulthood - romantic relationships and parental relationships w their child. hazan and shaver love quiz - analysed 620 replies to a love quiz printed in local american newspaper, 3 sections assessing association between attachment and adult relationships. found that 56% of ppts were secure, 25% avoidant, 19% resistant, secure = better and longer lasting relationships, avoidant = jealousy and fear of intimacy, findings suggest patterns of attachment are reflected in adult romantic relationships

strength - reviews and meta analysis of these studies consistently reflects the attachment style in their later relationships, hard to argue it's bias when it's so consistent

weakness - volunteer sample in local newspaper, very unrepresentative, cannot be generalised universally, not even to this one specific area, likely to be ppt variables. early attachment is assessed retrospectively, isn't longitudinal, only assessing these kids at childhood but not later in life, also questionnaires rely on the honesty and recollection of the ppt, likely to change answers to increase social desirability bias, kids may change their answers to be funny