attachment
caregiver-Infant interactions
Psychologist belief that these early interactions have important functions for a child's social development
Attachment is a mutualistic relationship
meltzoff+moore (1977)
examine interactional synchrony in infants
Displayed one of three facial expressions or hand gestures to 12-21 day old babies
Clear association between infant behaviour and adult model
Babies would imitate facial and physical gestures
Finding suggest that interactional synchrony is innate and reduces strength of any claim that imitative Behaviour is learnt
reciprocity (imitation)
Refers to the mutual exchange of responses between an infant and their caregiver (turn-taking)
Actions of one person elicit a response from the other
Babies are said to have an active involvement in their communications
interactional synchrony
When infants mirror the actions or emotions of another person
Child carries out same act as their caregiver simultaneously
Tronick et al. (1978)
Still face paradigm
First-babies continue smiling
however- become distressed
caregiver-Infant interactions ao3
strength: Laboratory study without demands characteristics- Babies don't know they're being observed so the behaviour doesn't change in response to observation, Data collected should have good reliability and validity
limitation: Observer bias in interpretation- Can raise questions about the validity of the research, More than one observer should be used to examine the enter observer reliability of the observations
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) method
examine formation of early attachments
60 babies, Visited for first 12 months and again at 18 months
And interviewed mothers about who babies preferred to be with
schaffer and emerson (1964) conclusion + findings
At 5-8 months 50% children showed separation anxiety
At 10 months 80% of children had (discriminate) specific attachment And 30% started to form multiple attachments
Suggest that attachment develops through a series of stages across the first year of life
Asocial attachments
birth-2 months
Observable behaviour- Humans and inanimate objects
Preference for company of similar people
indiscriminate attachments
2-7 months
Clear preference for humans over inanimate objects
Prefer company of similar people
No separation/stranger anxiety
discriminate (specific) Attachments
7-10 months
Stranger and separation anxiety
Attachments to a person who offers most interactions
Shows joy On reunion and comfort
multiple attachments
12-18 months
Tolerate brief separation
Still rely on emotional support and comfort
Extend to secondary attachment (siblings/grandparents)
By the age of one, the majority have developed multiple attachments
schaffers stages of attachment strengths
High external validity: Conducted observations of each child's own home, Children and Pirates are more likely to act naturally
Practical application in daycare: in the asocial and discriminate attachment stages, Daycare is likely to be straightforward as babies can be comforted by any skilled adult
schaffers stages of attachment limitation
Lack of population validity: 60 working class mothers and babies from Glasgow, May form very different attachments compared with wealthy families from other countries, Unable to generalise to other countries and backgrounds
Self reports, social desirability bias and internal validity: Some mothers may not have reported accurate details about their children to appear like better mothers with secure attachments, Reduces internal validity
The role of the father traditionally
Until very recently, men were not given any paternity leave from work, Caregiver role has not been seen as masculine, Potentially discourage his fathers from forming a close attachment
role of the father-Biological
Some Researchers claim men are Simply not equipped to form an attachment, Hormone oestrogen lysed caring behaviour in women and the lack of oestrogen in men is why they are unable to form a attachment
Play mate (geiger 1996)
Play interactions of father with their infant are more exciting and focused on fun in contrast to mother (more affectionate)
fathers as primary attachment figure
Much less likely to become a baby's first attachment figure compared to mothers
schaffer+emerson: 3% of cases father was first
distinctive role for fathers
grossmann et al (2002) - Baby studied until they were teens
Suggest that attachment to fathers is less important than attachment to mothers
role of father strengths
role as playmate: geiger (1996)- Father is more exciting in comparison to mothers, Suggests that the role of the father is in fact as a playmate and not sensitive parent who responds to the needs of their children
Intimate marriage->secure attachment: belsky et al (2009)- Males who reported higher levels of marital Intimacy also displayed a secure father-Infant attachment, Whereas males with lower levels displayed insecure father-infant attachment
role of father limitations
not equipped-Research evidence suggests that fathers are not as equipped as mothers to provide a sensitive and nurturing attachment (Unable to detect stress in their children due to lack of oestrogen)
Lack of clarity-Some research researchers want to understand the role of fathers as secondary attachment figures but others were more concerned with fathers as a primary attachment figure, Making it difficult to offer a simple answer as to the role of the father
animal studies of attachment-Imprinting and instinctive
Where an attachment is formed to the first thing they see upon hatching
Biologically innate mechanism that drives this behaviour
animal studies-Lorenz (1935)
Examines the phenomenon of imprinting
Imprinting only occurred within a critical period of 4 to 25 hours after hatching
Relationship persisted over time and proved to be irreversible
This attachment had an instinctive survival component to it
Harlow (1958)
Examine the extent to which contact comfort and food influences attachment
Removed baby rhesus monkeys from their mother at birth
'towelling mother' - 17-18 hours
'wire mother' - less than 1 hour
Innate drive to seek contact comfort
An emotional Need for security rather than food
maternally deprived monkeys as adults
Harlow+soumi (1971)
Most dysfunctional
Did not develop normal social behaviour
more aggressive and less socialble
neglected their young
lacked a model
animal studies of attachment ao3
harlow:
strength: Implications for theories-Attachments are adaptive, Formation of attachments is an instinctive behaviour that helps promote survival
limitation: Ethical concerns- Monkeys suffered greatly in terms of emotional separation from their biological mother, Extremely damaging and cruel
explanations of attachment: learning theory
dollard and miller (1950)
Explains how infants learned become attached to their primary caregiver through the process of classical or conditioning
'cupboard love theory' thought that an attachment were formed to whoever feeds them
Classical conditioning of attachment
Unconditioned stimulus (food)- Unconditioned response (pleasure)
Neutral stimulus (caregiver)- No response
Unconditioned stimulus+ Neutral stimulus- Unconditioned response
Conditioned stimulus (caregiver)- Conditioned response (pleasure)
positive reinforcement and Attachment
Infant rewarded for attaching to caregiver
Food is pleasure
Baby repeats actions
Positive reinforcement for mother
negative reinforcement for attachment
Infant is hungry they cry
Caregiver feeds them
Infant repeats
Negative reinforcement for mother
explanations of attachment: Learning theory strengths
Based on established theory: Skinner and operant conditioning was conducted on highly controlled settings, Cause and effect relationships, Provide provides clear explanation of how attachments are formed
Conditioning as a plausible explanation of attachment: Seems unlikely that association with food plays a essential role in attachment but conditioning still may play a role, Baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult which may influence the babies's choice of main attachment figure
explanations of attachment: learning theory limitations
Harlow's research undermines learning theory: Baby recess monkey spent more time with a soft travelling monkey Which provided food
Baby monkeys do not form attachments based on the presence of food alone and preferred contact comfort
Lorenzs Research undermines learning theory: Baby geese followed the first moving object they saw, Non-human animals demonstrate some in Bourne attachment behaviour to aid survival which goes against the idea that we learned through conditioning to attach to a caregiver because they feed us
bowlbys theory
I believed the attachment had more of a biological basis to it
Proposed that a child is born with a biological abilities to seek out an attachment figure
social releasers and the critical period
when newborn babies are born with a set of innate behaviours (e.g. smiling)- encourage attention from adults
Suggested that they are to activate adult social interactions (instinctive, adaptive mechanisms)
bowlby Proposed there is a critical period- Around 6 months when the babies attachment system is active
The rooting reflex
were newborn babies will turn their head towards anything that strokes or touches their cheek or mouth
bowlbys monotropic theory
there is described as monotrophic because he placed great emphasis on a child's attachment to one particular caregiver
This one caregivers attachment is different and more important than others
the law of continuity- The more constant and predictable child's care, the better the quality of their attachment
The law of accumulated separation- Effects of every Separation from mother add up
internal working model
Propose that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary attachment figure
Serves as a model for what relationship relationships are like
People tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being parented
bowlbys theory strengths
Research for internal working model: harlow (1958), Not having formed a significant attachment caused significant damage, Motherless monkeys that became mothers were inadequate mothers as they lacked model
Research support for social releasers: brazelton at al (1975), instructed primary attachment figure to ignore their babies social releasers, Babies became increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and lay motionless
bowlbys theory limitations
Cultural differences: Monotropy theory doesn't count for all cultures, In some cultures, multiple caregivers of the norm so don't form a special attachment relationship with just one person
validity of monotropy challenge: lacks validity, schaffer+emerson (1964) did recognise some infants who follow the pattern that they can form multiple attachments with different caregivers at the same time
The strange situation
ainsworth et al (1969)
Observed how infants be behaved through a one-way mirror
procedure:
Mother sits on chair, child explores toys
Stranger enters and talks with mother
Stranger approaches infant and attempts to interact
Mother leaves room, infant is alone with stranger
Mother return returns and stranger leaves
Mother leaves again so infant is alone
Stranger re-enters
Mother returns and stranger leaves
Secure attachment
66%
Explore the environment returning to mother in regular Intervals
Moderate separation + stranger anxiety
Pleased to see mother on reunion
Develop from parents who are sensitive and responsive to the needs of their child
insecure avoidant attachment
22%
Explore his environment, does not return to mother
Low separation + stranger anxiety
Shows little reaction up upon mother's return
Developed from caregivers not responding to a child's attempts to seek comfort during times of distress
insecure resistant attachment
12%
Infant doesn't explore environment, stays close to mother
High separation+ stranger Anxiety
Not easily comforted on mother's reunion
Developed from in inconsistent behaviours from caregiver
types of attachment strengths
Controlled observation: Standardised procedures, Allow replication of research, Allows comparisons between different cultures
High reliability: under strict and controlled methods, Several observers watching, Interobserver reliability is assumed to a high degree, Findings are considered reliable and more meaningful
types of attachment limitations
Lacks ecological validity: Controlled an artificial setting, Parents and influence may have acted different differently to how they would act in more familiar environment
Overt observation: Knew they were being observed, Demand characteristics, Mothers may have been overly affectionate and altered the children's behaviour, Lowers internal validity
cultural variations in attachment
Ijzendoom + kroonenberg (1988)
Meta analysis, Studies from a countries that used Ainsworth strange situation
Investigates cross-cultural variations in attachment
results: Secure is most common attachment type
Collectivist showed higher levels of insecure resistant
Individualistic showed higher levels of insecure avoidant
individualistic VS collectivist cultures
Individualistic prioritise individual, Independence and autonomy over the group (E.g. USA and UK)
Collective best prioritise the group, family and the community over the individual (EG China and Japan)
variation within countries VS variation between countries
Studies within the same country we were actually 150% greater than those between countries
In the USA one study found only 46% securely attached compared to one as high as 90%
cultural similarities
tronick et al (1992)
African tribe, Infants are looked after by different women
Tend to sleep with their own mothers at night
Show the preference for a primary attachment figure as six months old
cultural differences
grossman + grossman (1991)
German culture, Childrearing practices favourite independence from a young age whereby infants do not seek interpersonal contact with their parents
As a result infants from Germany tend to be securely attached
Since they do not seek proximity to their mothers of joy upon reunion
cultural variations in attachment ao3
strengths-
Standardised methodology: meter analysis made use of the same method of the strange situation, Accurately compares attachment behaviours across different cultures without extraneous variables
Indigenous researchers: Most studies were conducted by indigenous psychologists from the same cultural background, Enhances validity
limitations-
Confounding variables: Sample characteristics such as poverty social class can confound results, Means that looking at attachment behaviour indifferent nonmatched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross cultural patterns of attachment
Comparing countries are not cultures: Suggest that you cannot make comparisons between countries like Japan and the USA if you don't know the specific culture of the sample being studied
bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation
Early separation of a child from their primary caregiver during a critical period can have irreversible damaging consequences for the development
Believed the effects of maternal deprivation would be at their most acute during the critical period
Proposed if a child is unable to develop warm intimate relationships before the age of 2.5 there's a risk of behavioural disorders and mental health problems
maternal deprivation can cause
Abnormally low IQ (Intellectual development)
Affectionless psychopathy, criminalslity, prevents a person developing normal relationship relationships (Emotional development)
44 juvenile thieves (bowlby 1944) process
Aim to see if early separation from primary caregiver was associated with behavioural disorders
interviewed 44 for signs of lack of affection, guilt, and empathy
Compared to another group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people
Families were interviewed by social worker
44 juvenile thieves findings and conclusion
14 of 44 described as a affectionless psychopaths
12 of these had experienced prolonged and early separation
Two from control group experience separations
0 were described as affectionless psychopaths
Concluded the prolonged early separation causes affectionless psychopathy, Suggest a link between early separations and later social maladjustment
bowlbys Theory of maternal deprivation ao3
strength: bowlbys Research had significant impact on how vulnerable children are cared for an institutions, Put emphasis on potential dangers and how to help and support the child's development, Minimise his negative consequences for the child
Limitation: Temporal validity: Conducted in 1930s (no NHS), Could be argued, society has progressed in such a way that it makes it difficult for his findings to be applicable today, Undermines theory
Romanian orphan studies
Rutter 2010
Examine long-term effects of institutionalisation in a longitudinal study
165 Romanian orphans, 111 adopted before 2, 54 adopted before 4
compare to control group of 52 British children adopted before 6 months
Romanian orphans -delayed development, Mentally retarded, IQ was far lower than the control group
The Delays
quasi autism
OCD
Disinhibited attachment disorder- Little to no fear of unfamiliar adults
Lack of awareness, Failing to return to caregiver
cognitive impairment
conclusion of Romanian orphan study
Institutionalisation has severe long-term effects on development
Is exacerbated if the child is not adopted by two years old
Affects can be reversed by supportive and strong adoptive family
The Bucharest early intervention project
zeanah et al (2005)
Study attachment type of children who spent most life in institutional care
95 Romanian children, 50 control children never lived in institution
Those in absence of primary attachment figure were less likely to develop a secure attachment
effects of institutionalisation
Disinhibited attachment- Equally friendly and affectionate towards familiar people and strangers, Highly unusual behaviour
Intellectual disability- Can be recovered, provided adoption takes place before age of six months
Romanian orphan studies ao3
strength- Longitudinal studies: Takes place over many years, Allows them to assess short-term and long-term effects, Results appear to be a valid representation of the effects of being placed in an institutional care
Limitation- Issues with generalisation: Condition conditions with dire, Cannot be considered typical, Do not represent all situations where children are placed in care, Lack of external validity is a result of the unusual situational variables
The influence of early attachments- Relationships in childhood
kearns (1994)
securely attached- Good quality peer relationships
Insecure- Have difficult difficulties making and maintaining friendships
Suggest suggested insecure have high levels of anxiety and less likely to develop skills needed to effectively interact with other others
hazen and shaver 1987
Love quiz to test internal working model to assess if attachment type formd influences friendships and adult relationship relationships
Findings: 56%- Secure, 25%- Insecure avoidant, 19%- Insecure resistant
Secure- Long lasting relationships
Insecure avoidant- Fear closeness in relationships
Insecure resistant- Needy for love
Attachment Type of behaviours are reflected in adult romantic relationships
parenting
McCarthy 1999
40 adult women assessed when they were babies
Secure- Had best adult Friendships and relationships
Insecure avoidant- Struggled with intimacy
Insecure resistant- Had particular problems with maintaining friends and relationships
attachment type tends to be passed down through the generations of family
The influence of early attachments ao3
Strengths: Supporting evidence- Reviews of the evidence into attachment and lead relationship concluded the early attachment consistently predict later attachment, How strong the relationship is between early attachment type and related development depends both on attachment type and the aspect of related development
Limitations: Subjectivity- Love quiz, Subjective opinion and rating on their own relationship rather than an objective assessment from someone independent, Social desirability bias