Attachment Evaluations

Animal Studies of Attachment AO1

Animal studies are studies carried out on non-Human species rather than humans for Ethical or practical reasons some research can't be done with humans as animals breed faster and researchers interested in. Seeing. Results across more than one generation of animals. ethologists are people conducting animals studies, their observations, informed psychologists understandings of. Bonds between young animals and their parents. Lorenz did study on goslings, randomly dividing them into two groups. The control group left with natural mother and experimental group hatched in an incubator then the first moving objects that they saw was Lorenz. Incubator group followed Lorentz always, even when split. Same for control group for natural mother. Imprinting Occurs which is when During critical development Bird attached to the first moving object they see. Same can be applied more loosely for human infants. Harlow did experiment on baby Rhesus monkey separated at birth from mother's. Raised for 165 days with two wire model mothers. One was plain wire, the other covered in a cloth. in Condition one The wire mother dispensed to the monkey milk, but in condition 2 the cloth Covered monkey, dispensed milk. All the monkeys spent the most time with cloth mother, when scared by noisy mechanical toy, they went to seek comfort from cloth mother. Monkey Fed from wire only spent some time getting milk from wire, then went back to cloth Mother. suggests infants don't develop attachments to person feeding them, but the person offering contact comfort.    

Animal Studies of Attachment AO3

Strength of Lorenz's study findings supported by evidence from other studies. Guiton found Leghorn chicks exposed to yellow rubber gloves during feeding in first few weeks became imprinted on the gloves. The evidence important as supports the young animals not born With predisposition to imprint on a specific type of object, but probably on any moving thing present in critical period of development. Supports concept of sexual imprinting as males tried mating with gloves. However validity of Lorenz's research questioned as imprinting reversible. Guiton et al found chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves tried mating with them as Lorenz predicts. However, with experience they eventually learned to prefer mating with chickens. Therefore, it can be argued that the impact of imprinting on mating behaviour isn't as permanent as Lorenz believed. Thus. Validating his research only to an extent. 

Limitation. Harlow. Ethics questions Since monkeys suffered greatly as a result of Harlow's procedures. The species also considered similar enough to humans to generalize findings, so suffering human like. very distressed from separation from birth mothers. This is problem as Harlow failed to protect monkeys from harm despite knowing procedure it would be distressing As indicated to his reference of wire mothers as iron maidens after a medieval torture device. But Harlows experiment justified, his research helped psychologists understand attachment and effects of maternal deprivation. Helped psychologists understand some adult difficulties too, EG depression, which may be. Rooted from poor early bonding experiences, Therefore, it can be argued that the benefits of the study for society far outweighed the costs incurred by harm done to the monkeys. 

A limitation. Animal studies of attachment. Hard to extrapolate findings to human behavior. Humans have higher level of cognition than animals, so they've got more conscious controls over their decisions and behaviour. Problem has been that it's impossible to make Any inferences as to whether contact comfort plays as key role In forming of attachment in human infants. however, a number of studies found observations of animal behavior are mirrored in studies of humans. E.g. harlows research supported by schaffer and emerson’s findings that infants were not most attached to person who fed them, they found infants Strongest attachment to the person who responded the most sensitively to their needs. Therefore, it can be argued that animal studies can act as a useful pointer in understanding human behaviour, but we should always seek confirmation by looking at research with humans. 

Learning Theory as Explanation of Attachment AO1

Dollard and Miller used learning theory to explain infant attachments to their primary caregiver. approach emphasizes importance of caregiver as a provider of food as they believe in infant will learn to have to love whoever feeds them. This is called the cupboard love approach. Classical conditioning. Attachment is learned through associating 2 stimuli together. These in attachment are foods and the caregiver. unconditioned stimulus is food  Unconditioned stimulus of food produces unconditioned response of pleasure for baby. Occurring without learning. Caregiver starts as neutral stimulus producing no response in the baby. If neutral stimulus (person feeding infant) is regularly paired with unconditioned stimulus of food the infant forms learned association between the two stimuli. The neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus meaning the infant is conditioned to experience the feeling of pleasure when seeing the person who feeds them. To learning theorists, this conditioned pleasure is love. Operating conditioning involves learning through consequences/reinforcement. If a behavior produces a pleasant consequence, the behavior is likely to be repeated/reinforced. If the behaviour produces an unpleasant consequence (Punishment) It's less likely to be repeated. According to the principles of operant conditioning, attachment is learned through two different types of reinforcement. Positive - Receiving a reward when behaviour is performed and Negative - When an animal or human avoids something unpleasant, so the outcome is rewarding. 

Learning Theory as Explanation of Attachment AO3

Limitation of learning theories of attachment is that there's counter evidence from animal research. This is because the range of animal studies showing young animals don't attach/imprint on those who feed them. Supported by evidence from Lorenz's studies, Gosling imprinted on him before being fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them. Likewise with Harlow monkeys attached to a soft surrogate Rather than a wire one that dispenses milk. also Evidence feeding unimportant factor when forming attachment for humans, supported by evidence from Shaffer and Emerson who found many babies developed primary attachment to their mother even though the other carers did Most of the feeding. problem as in these studies shows attachment doesn't develop as a result of feeding, invalidating learning theory. Therefore, it can be argued that the development of attachment is more complex than just the provision of food. Comfort and responsiveness also play a role. 

Limitation ignores other factors associated with forming attachments, such as level of sensitivity shown from carer. Problem as these factors undermine the idea of cupboard love. This is because infants and caregivers have much more complex interactions leading to strong relationships forming based on high quality Infant caregiver attachment. Bowlby’s theory of attachment seen as more valuable than learning theory as Bowlby’s theory explains why attachments form and the advantage of an attachment forming such as protection from harm, enhancing survival. However, learning theory has value as infants learn, Through association and reinforcement, but food may not be Main reinforcer it's more likely to be attention and responsiveness from a caregiver. Therefore, it can be argued that there are other factors that are better at explaining how an attachment forms and the learning theory is too simplistic and outdated. 

Strength evidence for safety conditioning as it's believed the attachment figure becomes associated with low anxiety and feelings of safety. Supported by evidence from BosMans et al. His research suggests classical conditioning occurs when the attachment figure becomes associated with lower anxiety. Operating conditioning. When attachment behaviour is rewarded with anxiety reduction, however, both classical and operant conditioning sees the baby as passive in the development of attachments. They simply respond to associations with comfort or reward. other researchers say Babies are an active partner in their interactions with the caregiver. This is supported by research from Feldman and Eidelman who found Mothers are very alert to their baby's active signaling, meaning babies aren't passive recipients as predicted by learning theory. Therefore, it can be argued that while learning theory may be useful in understanding the development of attachment, it may not explain all aspects of attachment. 

Bowlby’s monotropic theory of Attachment AO1

Bowlby’s monotropic theory is an evolutionary explanation of attachment. As attachment was an innate mechanism that evolved due to survival advantages it offered to early human Infants, staying close to caregiver would protect infants from danger, so genes coding for attachment would be naturally selected. It's a monotonic theory as focuses on unique attachment formed between infant and primary caregiver, which is different and more significant than other attachments, forming Basis of internal working model. infant form primary Attachment To the person providing most constant predictable care. Infants also born with innate characteristics called social releases as they activate adult attachment system. E.g. crying, smiling, and elicit caregiving behaviors from adults. Also critical period for attachment to form Last until two years old. Bowlby later changed to sensitive window. Bowlby believed once this window passed the infants ability to form attachment is lost, affecting individual's ability to form a lasting relationship with others in the future. Infants form an IWM which is a mental representation of their relationship with their primary attachment figure. a child's future relationships Influenced by IWM as it acts as a template for expectations of future relationships. Also influences future parenting behavior as people tend to base their parenting behavior on their experiences of how they were parented. Explains why children from dysfunctional families tend to have dysfunctional relationships with their own children. 

Bowlby’s monotropic theory of Attachment AO3

Strength. Supported by evidence from longitudinal study done by Sronfe finding individuals classified as securely attached are highest rated for social competence later in childhood less isolated, more popular, and more empathetic. Supports Bowlby’s idea that infants form an internal working model of their relationships with their primary caregiver, Influencing nature of relationships they have with friends when they get older because infants who form secure attachments with primary caregiver will have a more Positive expectation of how people behave in relationships, which would have influenced the interactions they had with friends and partners during adolescence and continuing into adulthood. furthermore idea parenting Behaviour influence by IWM supported by Briley finding mothers who reported having a poor attachment to their parents upon interview were observed more likely to have a poor attachment with their one year old. Therefore, it can be argued the quality of the attachment an infant has with their primary caregiver plays a significant role in their later social development due to the formation of an internal working model.  

Limitation Kagan opposes attachment being determined by caregiver sensitivity As an inherent innate temperament, (emotional personality) may explain attachment behaviour. Infants with easy temperament are more likely to be strongly attached as easier for caregivers to interact with them. Those of difficult temperament thus tend to be more insecurely attached. Supported by evidence from Belsky and Rovine finding infants Between one and three days old, with signs of behavioral instability, difficult temperament were later judged to be more likely to have developed an insecure attachment. Therefore, it can be argued that as seen by Spayler A mother’s perception of infants Temperament influenced mother's responsiveness. Overall sensitivity of caregiver and temperament determines strength of attachment. 

Limitation idea of monotropy. Opposed by Shaffer and Emerson finding unlike Bowlby’s belief a baby formed one special attachment with mother. Then formed other attachments, half of 18 month old PP's attached most to mother. 1/3 father remainder to both. undermines Bowlby's theory as suggest attachment of infants with mother isn't necessarily special ot unique, although it could be argued these attachments depend on initial attachment being made with the mother. But research from seuss et al shows attachment to the mother is more important in predicting later behaviour. Therefore, it can be argued that infants are capable of forming multiple attachments ranging in intensity, although the extent of these attachments depends on their maturity and sociability, as well as how sensitively these people respond to their needs. 

Strange situation to identify attachment type AO1

Strange situation is controlled observation measuring severity of attachment in infants aged 9 to 18 months with caregiver. Takes place in small room with two mirror, 7 episodes, 3 minutes long each. Observes proximity seeking, exploration, separation anxiety, response to reunion and stranger anxiety. First baby encouraged to explore testing exploration and proximity seeking and stranger enters Speaks to caregiver and approaches baby testing stranger anxiety and proximity seeking, then caregiver leaves baby and strangers together testing separation and stranger anxiety. Then caregiver return, the stranger leaves testing reunion behaviour and exploration. caregiver then leaves baby alone testing separation anxiety, Stranger returns testing stranger anxiety. Then caregiver returns and reunites testing Reunion behaviour. Three types Attachment A: insecure avoidant attachment. Children avoid social interaction and intimacy with others, show little or no response on Separation from caregiver and don't seek caregiver proximity and reunion. Don't cling to caregiver when picked up. Explore happily alone and have high levels of anxiousness. B: secure attachment, infants with harmonious Cooperative attachment. don't cry on caregiver separation showing only some distress. When with stranger, seek bodily contact from caregiver When anxious and soothed easily. seek social interaction and intimacy, use caregiver As secure base to explore from. C: insecure resistant, seeks and resists intimacy and social interaction. Response to separation from caregiver with immediate. intense distress and behaves similarly to strangers. on reunion display conflicting desires for and against contact may angrily resist. being picked up but also maintain proximity by other means. 

Strange situation to identify attachment type AO3

Strength strange situation, has good interrater reliability, different observers of study consistently assign same attachment type to children in strange situation because procedures took place under controlled conditions, standardized procedures and easily identifiable behavioral categories used to classify attachment type. Important as means we can be confident attachment type assessed by strange situation doesn't depend on subjective judgments as different observers reach same conclusion on child's attachment type. Bick et al found when testing interrater reliability for strange situation that A team of trained observers agreed on attachment type as seen by behaviours In 94% of cases, therefore, it can be argued that the strange situation is very reliable and thus can be generalized to psychological learning regarding infant attachment. 

Limitation. Strange situation criticized as culturally relative, as procedure designed in US and based on Western ideas on childhood and child rearing practices. Not appropriate measure of attachments globally. Problem. as babies can have different experiences in different cultures, which can affect their responses to stranger situation and thus attachments can be incorrectly classified. Takahashi noticed Japanese mothers spend more time with babies causing them to have higher levels of separation anxiety. So disproportionate number of classified as insecure resistant, not separating from mother's can be cause of this separation anxiety, Not because of high insecure attachment babies. German children also appeared more independent and show less distress at separation could lead to them being labeled insecure avoidant even though the behaviour is consistent with the values of german parenting norms that value self reliance. Therefore, it can be argued that the strange situations findings on attachment type and its proportions can't be generalized to other countries out of the US and findings everywhere else should be interpreted cautiously. 

Limitation. outlooked other attachment types. Main and Solomon analyzed over 200 strange situation videotapes and proposed a fourth attachment type overlooked by Ainsworth which is insecure disorganized type D. characterized by infants not having a consistent type of attachment lacking coherent strategy when Dealing with stress of separation and having a mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours. problem as suggests Ainsworths strange situation lacks validity as it failed to identify an important type of attachment. Supported by Vanizjendoorn et al who did meta-analysis of 80 studies. found 15% of infants are insecure disorganised. however type D. Babies are considered unusual and have generally experienced some form of severe neglect or abuse, Most will go on to develop psychological conditions by adulthood. Therefore, it can be argued that Ainsworth original classification system was incomplete and that attachment behaviour is more complex than the strange situation allowed for. 

Cultural Variations in attachment AO1

In attachment research, cultural variations are the different norms and values That exists between different cultures, resulting in varying proportions of attachment types. Van Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg did a study for a proportion of secure insecure avoidant insecure resistance across eight countries to see if there were cultural variations. Also look at the differences within same countries to see variations within a culture. Meta analysis of 32 studies with 1900 infants. 15 of 32 studies done in the US. Secure attachment was most common in all countries. Proportion ranged from 75% in Britain to 50% in China. Insecure avoidant. Second most common type in all countries but Japan and Israel. Insecure, resistant, least common attachments type, but proportion range from 3% in Britain to 30% in. Israel. Variations in attachment type within a country 1.5 times greater than between countries. more Recently simonella et al did a study in Italy of 76 one year olds to see if proportions Matched those of older studies assessing attachment type using the strange situation, 50% of infants securely attached, 36% insecure avoidant, which is lower secure attachment and higher insecure avoidant rates. Mi Kyoung Jin et al compared attachment type proportions of Korea to other countries. Overall proportions of insecure and secure infants similar to most countries with majority infants securely attached. Overall, secure attachment is the norm across cultures, supporting Bowlby's idea of attachment being innate and universal. However, research also shows cultural practices have influence on attachment types. 

Cultural Variations in attachment AO3

Strength many studies in this field conducted by local researchers so researchers and PPS or same culture, e.g. vanizjendoorn and Kroonenberg were Germans and studied some Germans. important as means potential issues in cross cultural research avoided such as researchers misunderstanding pp's language or Difficulty communicating instructions to them. also biased with stereotypes of cultures. Excellent chance researcher and PP of same culture communicates better increasing validity. However, not always the case with cross cultural research. Morelli and Tronic studied child rearing and patterns of attachment in the efe of Democratic Republic of the Congo. Researchers were outsiders from America, and their data may have been affected by difficulties gathering data from PPS Outside their own culture. Therefore, it can be argued the data from some studies not conducted by local researchers lacks validity due to difficulty in cross cultural communication. 

Limitation, research criticised for failing to represent cultural variations in attachment and studied different countries and not cultures e.g. vanizjendoorn. Problem as countries have multiple cultures so not effectively measuring specific cultures. Also one sample can over represent People, for example, in poverty and that stress can affect caregiving and attachment patterns. For instance, analysis by Vanizjendoorn and Sagi found distributions of attachment in the urban setting of Tokyo similar to Western studies, whereas a more rural sample has an overrepresentation of insecure resistant individuals, suggests child rearing practices differ significantly Within Japan. Therefore, it can be argued psychologists should be cautious when drawing conclusions from these studies, as cultural uniformity is nonexistent. 

limitation strange situation designed by American psychologists, so criteria for secure attachment only reflects western childcare practices. Problem as questions whether these theories/assessments applicable to other countries because of imposed etic criteria used in the strange situation. Based on Western criteria, assuming certain infant behaviours like willingness to explore and independence are signs of secure attachment, that could not be the case in cultures of different child rearing practices. For example, in Japanese culture, emotional dependence between mother and infant is encouraged. So in strange situation, an infant classified as insecurely attached could be securely attached in Japanese Culture/standards due to high levels of separation anxiety. Therefore, it can be argued that psychologists need to adopt an emic approach interpreting behavior from a local perspective to studying cultural variations in attachment types, which recognize cultural differences in child rearing and improves validity of cross Cultural Research. 

Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory AO1

Maternal deprivation refers to emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between infant and mother/Mother figure. believes by Bowlby cause inevitable damage to emotional, social and intellectual development if it takes place during first thirty months of life (critical period). Separation means child not in presence of primary attachment figure only an issue for development if child deprived of emotional care, E.G. mother mentally unfit. Brief separation, particularly where the child is with a substitute caregiver Not significant for development, but extended separations can lead to deprivation which causes harm if no substitute for mother in 13 months and no Mother, psychological damage is inevitable with continual risk up to age 5. intellectual development if child is deprived of maternal care too long in critical periods have delayed intellectual development seen by low IQ's, Goldfarb found foster children have higher IQ to institutionalized children due to higher quality emotional care. emotional development, affectionless psychopathy, consequence from total deprivation. It's the inability to feel guilt or strong emotions towards others, including a lack of empathy for someone they harmed prevents creating fulfilling relationships. Affectionless psychopaths associated with criminals as they don't appreciate the victim's feelings and lack remorse. 

Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory AO3

Strength maternal deprivation supported by evidence from 44 thieves study found 86% of affectionless psychopath thieves experience maternal deprivation due to continual or repeated stays in hospitals/ foster homes, compared to 17% of Remaining 30 thieves and only 5% of control group. supports Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation and suggests lack of continuous care during early years effects emotional development as children in Bowlby's study who experienced extended periods of separation from others were most likely to display emotional misadjustments through an inability to show empathy or guilt. However, Lewis opposes this as found in her replication of thieves study with 500 PP's. Early separation from mother didn't predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships. Problem for the theory of maternal deprivation, as suggests other factors affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation. Therefore, it can be argued that the extent to which a child experiences long term psychological damage as a result of early maternal deprivation is subject to individual differences such as child's attachment type, temperament or later social influences. 

Limitation overestimated role of critical periods because Bowlby thought damage inevitable if prolonged separation took place during that critical period. But later research showed damage not inevitable. Some cases of very severe deprivation had good outcomes provided the child's had some interaction and good aftercare. Koluchova reported Case of Czech twins isolated in a cupboard by stepmother from age of 18 months to seven years old. Subsequently, they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully, suggests In severe cases of privation during bowlby’s identified periods that it doesn't guarantee damage. Therefore it can be argued that Bowlby's idea of a critical period may be lacking and instead it's better to approach the concept as a sensitive period.  

Limitation, it fails to distinguish between deprivation and privation’s Effects as Bowlby didn't specify long term psychological damage associated with maternal deprivation occurs from deprivation where attachment forms but is broken due to prolonged or temporary separations or privation which is Failure to form an attachment. according to Rutter, is a problem as privation has far more serious Consequences for the child than deprivation, and long term effects of privation on social, emotional and intellectual development can be much harder to reverse. E.g. Rutter et al found in his Romanian orphan study of 165 orphans, those adopted after 6. Months more likely to show disinhibited attachment, clingy attention seeking stranger over familiarity. Therefore, it can be argued that deprived kids reap less consequences than privated and thus maternal deprivation limited for not distinguishing between their respective effects. 

Effects of institutionalisation (romanian orphan studies) AO1

Institutionalization refers to the effects of living in an institutional setting. Institution refers to. A place like a hospital or orphanage where children live continuous periods of time, often with little emotional care provided. in attachment research psychologists interested in effect of institutions on social cognitive and emotional development of a child. Bowlby’s maternal deprivation based on his work with emotionally disturbed Children. this emotional Disturbance Stemmed from a lack of continuous care, which happens to a child experiencing institutional care. later researchers studied linked between institutional care and early life and later emotional and intellectual difficulties. era study by Rutter et al studied 165 Romanian kids adopted by English families. early years were spent in institutional care. investigated extent good care makes up for poor early institution experiences. Control group of 52 British adoptees adopted at the same time. physical, cognitive, emotional development assessed over time. if adoption took place after. Six months age disinhibited attachment shown. This insecure attachment type characterized by attention seeking, clinginess, and over familiarity with strangers. before six months disinhibited attachment rarely shown, Rutter thought it was an adaptation to living with many caregivers in sensitive periods and not spending enough time With one for secure attachment. When arriving in UK. half kids had signs of delayed Intellectual Development and most malnourished. At age 11, adoptees showed different recovery rates based on age of adoption. Mean IQ for infants adopted before six months was 102. Those adopted at two years old was 77. These differences remained at 16. Can be recovered so long as adoption happens before six months – age attachment forms. Zeenah compared 95 Romanian orphans with control group of 50 Romanian kids never been in institution. using strange situation, it was found 74% of the control group had secure attachment, 14% of the orphans, 44% of institutionalized kids had disinhibited attachment type while 20% of control group were disinhibited attachment. 

Effects of institutionalisation (romanian orphan studies) AO3

The strength of effective institutionalization studies are, has real life application as enhanced psychological research on effective institutionalization leading to improvements in children care in institutions, for example, over 3000. UK children homes avoid children having many caregivers and then set aside each child one or two key workers who become their attachment figures and play a central role in their emotional care. Important as provides a child with opportunities to develop secure attachment with caregiver due to consistency of their care and helps avoid development of disinhibited attachment. However Even good quality institutional care seen as least Desirable option for looked after children and efforts are first made to place children in foster care or have them adopted. Therefore, it can be argued that research into Romanian orphans has been hugely. Valuable to psychologists due to unique insights provided into the development impairments caused by privation. 

Limitation of findings lack generalizability as standards of care for Romanian orphans not typical of care children experience in institutions due to the extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation, low numbers of staff to the number of children Which prevented children forming attachments with caregivers. Problem as limits extent findings of these studies can be generalized to other types of institutionalized care, Especially as the orphanage also had appalling physical conditions which impacted the Children's Health. Therefore, it could be argued that the severity of the effects of institutionalization Care dependent on the prevalence of multiple factors such as poor environmental conditions, malnourishment, lack of emotional care, and an absence of cognitive stimulation.  

Limitation as natural not true experiments. PP's not randomly allocated to conditions. Problem as can't be sure Independent variable (quality of care) was the only variable affecting the dependent variable which was attachment style. In ERA study the independent variable was institutional care of the Romanian adoptees or no institutional care (the control group). It could be that better developmental outcomes in control group due to better nutrition rather than quality of care and infancy However, even though Wade Randomly allocated PPs to foster family group or institutional care group. He found no differences to the results of ERA. Randomly allocating PPS in this context also raises ethical issues as it's unethical, placing children deliberately in potentially harmful institutional care conditions for the sake of research. therefore it can be argued that while random allocation increases internal validity, ethical constraints make it difficult to conduct a true experiment in this area limiting the extent to which cause and effect can be firmly established. 

Effect of early attachment on later childhood and adult relationships AO1

IWM are mental representations we have regarding attachment to primary caregiver. Bowlby believed it important as effects future relationships as carry our expectations/ perceptions of what relationships are like. childhood relationships are Affiliations with others in childhood e.g. friends, teachers, classmates, adults. adults relationships are relationships had in adult later life E.G. friendship, colleagues and most critically, relationships with romantic partners and their own children. Bowlby believe the child's first relationship with primary caregiver leads to mental representation of this relationship. This IWM acts as a template for child's expectation/belief of future relationships. Allows Child to learn it's safe to trust and depend on others. As adults, they'll seek Warm. Loving. Intimate relationships, With people who they can depend on and who can depend on them. On the other hand, infants who fail to receive proper emotional care from primary caregiver often struggled to maintain long term relationships later on. They're either too emotionally distant, insecure avoidant, or too controlling and argumentative insecure resistant. research suggests early. childhood attachment type influences childhood relationships. The Minnesota Parent Child Study found securely attached infants rated highest for social competence were less isolated, more popular, and empathetic in later childhood. Explained by IWM as secure attached infants, expect friends to be trustworthy and are less jealous Of their friendships with their peers then insecure resistant kids. also securely attached infants more tolerant, sensitive and responsive to friendships needs so easier maintaining friendships than insecure avoidant kids. Research also shows bullying behaviour predicted by early attachment type. Secure, not likely to be involved. insecure avoidant likely to be bullied, insecure resistant, likely to be bullies. IWM affects 2 major adult experiences, romantic relationships, and parental relationships with one's own children. Hazan and Shaver used the Love Quiz to propose continuity exists between child attachment Type And adult attachment type E.G. secure attached kids form secure attachments as adults because kids see primary caregiver as secure base to safely explore the world. Secure adult has similar relationship with their partner as the sense of security means they won't worry about rejection. also People tend to base their parenting style on the IWM, so attachments type tends to be passed on through generations of a family. 

Effect of early attachment on later childhood and adult relationships AO3

Strength of idea early attachment influences adult/child relationship supported by evidence from. Sinfan et al, who found Pp's rates as securely attached infants rated to be more socially competent as kids, closer to their friends at 16 and emotionally attached to romantic partners in early adulthood. this evidence supports role of IWM As shows continuity between early and adult attachment types due to ability of securely attached infants to form a loving and emotionally close relationship with their partner as adult. suggests early Experiences influence expectations of future relationships, but this was opposed by Fraley, who found in a review of 27 studies in this area, Correlations between early and late attachment type ranged from 0.1 to 0.5. Fraley argued the weak correlation found in some studies. could be attributed to the instability of insecure resistant attachment types. Suggests Continuity between early and later attachment may be weaker than originally proposed, challenging the strength of IWM as predictor of future relationships. Validity of conclusion questionable as Age attachment type was reassessed ranged from one month to 20 years later, indicating many children are still infants when reassessed, meaning it wasn't a true test of long-term continuity. Therefore, it can be argued that further longitudinal research should be carried out in this area to establish the extent to which early attachment Influences later childhood and adult relationships. 

Limitation criticized for being determinist suggests very early childhood experiences have fixed effects on the quality of adult/child relationships, meaning insecurely attached infants at age of 1 doomed to have emotionally unsatisfying relationships in their later childhood and as Adult. problem as implies people can't change, it undermines role of free will in influencing behavior. Whereas research by Rutter suggests people deprived their emotional care in infancy, went on to have a secure, stable, happy adult relationships indicating early attachment type Not the sole determinant of quality of adult romantic relationships. Many factors influence human relationships, e.g. personality, culture, life events, etc. Therefore, it can be argued that influence of early attachment on later relationships more likely to be probabilistic than deterministic, as IWM constantly adapting and changing relationship Expectations based on new experiences that an individual has.  

Limitation fails to establish causality as research into this only demonstrates correlation between early attachments and later attachment quality. Can't assume early attachment type causes later relationship outcomes. problem, as it's possible both attachment style and later love styles are caused by something different, E.g. innate temperament. research shown Life Events Like parental divorce, illness or death can have more impact on security and adult relationships than early attachment type, suggesting an infant securely attached can develop anxious or dismissive attachment types as an adult. Also, the quality of adult relationships may be a product of the relationship itself, not the individual's attachment. As relationships are two-way interactions, the behavior and emotional responses of both partners combine to shape the overall quality of the relationship. Therefore, it can be argued that the complex nature of relationship behaviour means it's not possible to predict reliably the quality of later relationships solely based on the type of attachment one formed with their primary caregiver.