psychology - attachment

attachment

emotional relationship between 2 people where each seeks closeness & feels more secure in presence of attachment figure

reciprocity

• caregiver and child both respond to each others actions with mutual responsiveness which elicits a response from each other.

• babies have an active role and can initiate interactions

what is sensitive responsiveness

• caregiver correctly interprets meaning of baby’s communication & responds appropriately

• during alert phases, mothers respond successfully around 2/3 of the time

still face experiment

• Tronick (1972)

• shows infants need to respond to their caregivers to form an attachment

interactional synchrony

• Meltzoff and Moore (1977)

• a simultaneous interaction between infant and caregiver, where baby imitates caregiver’s actions in time with them

• high levels of synchrony are associated w/ high quality attachments

3 indicators for attachment are?

proximity → being physically close to attachment figure

secure base behaviour → during play, baby leaves attachment figure but comes back to them

separation distress → being upset when attachment figure leaves

AO3 for caregiver-infant interactions in humans

✅research support -Meltzoff & Moore’s studied interactional synchrony - (found it aids in forming attachment + supports interactions are innate) → increase construct validity of interactions

✅experiment was recorded, highly controlled - babies don’t increase demand characteristic + parents used, at ppts homes (↑ ecological validity), recording can be analysed later, increases internal validity + reliability

❌controlled observation - low ecological validity - (demand characteristics due to artificial facial expressions, ↓ mundane realism) + inhibits or exaggerates certain characteristics that wouldn’t occur irl, ↓ internal validity

❌babies cant communicate their thoughts - research is based on interferences + subjective + ↑ researcher bias, not scientific, ↓ psychology’s credibility as a science

schaffer and emerson case study

• they aimed to investigate formation of attachment in babies

• they used 60 babies, from Glasgow in working class families where researchers visiting their homes monthly for 18 months via naturalistic observational study

• separation & stranger anxiety in babies was measured by asking mother’s about their babies’ behaviour

• found → evidence of 4 stages of attachment, 87% of babies formed attachments with 2 or more caregivers, babies formed stronger attachment if caregiver displayed high sensitive responsiveness

schaffer’s stages of attachment

1. asocial (anyone, behaviour to people and inanimate objects is similar) → 0 - 6 weeks

2. indiscriminate attachment (more social, prefer & recognise familiar faces) → 6 weeks - 7 months

3. specific attachment (form attachment to primary caregiver, separation and stranger anxiety develop) → 7 to 9 months

4. multiple attachment (stranger anxiety decreases, form secondary attachments with other adults) → 9/10+ months

AO3 for Schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachment

✅naturalistic study - e.g. at home, high mundane realism, results more likely to generalise how babies and caregivers act in everyday life, high ecological validity

✅longitudinal study - 18months - high internal validity

❌biased → observer bias / social desirability bias by mothers in interviews, decrease internal validity

❌not generalisable - lacks temporal validity (1960s) and gynocentric (only working class Glasgow mothers)

❌ethnocentric - doesn’t take collectivist cultures into account, babies can form multiple attachments young , etic approach used, emic approach would increase population validity and increase generalisability

AO1 for role of the father

• Schaffer & Emerson found in only 3% of cases, father was first sole attachment figure, 27% of cases both father and mother were joint 1st attachment

• After 18months, 75% of infants formed an attachment with the father, showing separation anxiety ∴ father’s role is important

• roles → active play, (Grossman) did longitudinal study looking at parent’s behaviour and quality of attachment, found quality of father’s attachment less significant than mother’s.

• (Field) → father can be primary caregiver if they display behaviours more typical of mothers, e.g. interactional synchrony which increases capacity for sensitive responsiveness

• key to attachment is level of responsiveness, not gender of parent

AO3 for role of the father

✅real world application - advice can be given to same sex couples → Grossman says fathers are less essential in baby’s development (lesbians), Field says fathers can fulfil main caregiver role (gays)

✅reduce gender pay gaps by equalising maternity and paternity leave since both parental roles are equally important + economic implications - Field’s research has high construct validity as it supports that caregiving ability isn’t determined by gender

❌observer bias - researcher might already have perceptions about how parents should behave e.g. father’s are more playful, ↓ internal validity

❌heteronormative → ↓ population validity, don’t represent range of family structures present in modern society.

Outline Lorenz's Animal Study Experiment

• Lorenz divided up a clutch of goose eggs

• control group hatched in front of the mother goose and the experimental group hatched in an incubator where Lorenz was the first living thing they saw.

• when the two groups were mixed they stuck with their original attachment figure.

Evaluate Lorenz’s findings

• critical period of 90minutes

• animals imprint on first moving object they see, control group followed mother, experimental followed Lorenz

• later in life, experimental group goslings displayed attraction to humans

Strengths of Lorenz’s experiment

• research support - e.g. Regolin (1995) found chicks imprinted on moving shapes → young animals have innate mechanism to imprint to first moving object , ↑ construct validity

• concept of critical period findings can be applied to humans since Bowlby argued there are similar critical periods - high construct validity

Weaknesses of Lorenz’s study

• lacks generalisability to humans because human attachment is more complex (goes two ways), ↓ validity

Outline Harlow's Animal Study experiment

• tested ‘cupboard love’ theory that babies only form attachments to mothers because they feed them

• 16 baby rhesus monkeys were reared with two wire model mothers. In one condition milk was given to the plain wire mother whereas in the second it was given to the cloth covered mother.

• Harlow scared monkeys with mechanical teddy bear and found they went to cloth mother for comfort

Evaluate Harlow’s Findings

• contact comfort was more important in forming an attachment than food

• monkeys spent more time with cloth covered mother

• Long term - monkeys were dysfunctional due to maternal deprivation and displayed aggressive and antisocial behaviour and struggled to form attachments

What Are The Strengths Of Harlow’s Experiment ?

• scientific → controlled, ↓ confounding variables, standardised, done in lab, ↑ internal validity

• RWA - helped social workers understand risk factors in child abuse and how to prevent it, instead of just making sure people have shelter and food that they are also being treated with love and care + understand importance of attachment figures for monkeys in zoos

Weaknesses of Harlow’s Experiment ?

• unethical - monkeys couldn’t withdraw; some died if they weren’t given blankets to cuddle and they were separated from their mothers at birth. → damages reputation of psychology and it’s research

• low internal validity - wire mothers heads were different which could be a confounding variable, not standardised

What is Social Learning Theory

• proposes that new behaviours can be acquired by observing and imitating others.

• Dollard and Miller proposed ‘cupboard love’ theory that babies only form attachments because they are fed by primary caregiver

State two explanations of attachment

• Social Learning theory (behavioural)

• Bowlby’s Theory (biological)

State two theories for the learning theory

• Classical Conditioning

• Operant Conditioning

Briefly explain classical conditioning

• Learning through association

Briefly explain operant conditioning

• Learning through consequences and reinforcement

Explain classical conditioning linking it to attachment

• Milk provided by the mother (NS) is an unconditioned stimulus which provides an unconditioned response in the baby of relief from hunger.

• The neutral stimulus is the mother, and through repetition of feeding the feeder becomes the conditioned stimulus. Therefore whenever the baby is hungry at just the sight of the feeder it will link the CS and the UCR together and become relieved.
  

Explain operant conditioning making it to attachment

• When the baby feels uncomfortable because it is hungry they experience a drive state - hunger is a primary drive:

• The food is the primary reinforcer and the child learns that the food is a reward. The feeder of the baby becomes the secondary reinforcer and the infant thus seeks to be near to this feeder as they are the source of reward and the attachment is formed + primary drive of hunger is generalised to caregiver

• crying is reinforced because it produces a pleasurable consequence

AO3 for social learning theory explanation of attachment

✅face validity (when behaviour appears at first sight to represent what is being measured) - states behaviour is learnt through observation, esp when reinforced → it makes sense that babies would cry when they learn they are rewarded each time → aligns with real life + high construct validity

✅research support - Pavlov and Skinner for classical and operant conditioning - increase construct validity

❌conflicting research - Harlow said ‘contact comfort’ is more important than cupboard love + Schaffer and Emerson + Field state responsiveness forms high quality attachments

❌environmentally reductionist - parents would say their relationship with their child is more complex than stimulus associations + ignores biological influences - reduce explanatory power + validity

What is monotropy ?

infants have an innate drive to form a unique attachment to their mother and stay in close proximity

Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory of Attachment

• Adaptive → babies are more likely to survive as attachment provides food and safety

• Social releasers → e.g. smiling / crying ‘unlock’ caregiver’s innate tendency to care for baby

• Critical period → strong monotropic attachment needs to form within 30months of birth or baby suffers emotionally, socially and intellectually

• Monotropy → Law of continuous separation: effects of separation add up and Law of Continuity: constant care = better attachment

• Internal working model → monotropic attachment to mother forms this schema which is a blueprint for all future relationships

AO3 for Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory of Attachment

✅research support for IWM → attachment was measured with 99 mothers and their 1 year olds then with their mothers

✅real world application → physical contact now encouraged after birth due to Bowlby as it aids in a strong monotropic attachment

❌IWM is determinist → doesn’t take free will into account

❌unacceptable to feminists → suggests mothers who work negatively affect development of child (Law of Continuity and Accumulated Separation)

What is Ainsworth’s A Strange Situation

• an observation to investigate child attachment

• involves increasingly stressful experiences for the child - the reactions determine the attachment type

What was the procedure for A Strange Situation

• baby encouraged to explore

• a stranger comes in

• the caregiver leaves so the baby and stranger are left alone

• the caregiver returns and the stranger leaves

• the caregiver leaves so the baby is alone

• the stranger returns

• the baby is reunited with caregiver

  (basically mother leaving the room and stranger entering & behaviours that indicated attachment strength were measured)

How is a Strange Situation measured ?

• Proximity

• Reunion behaviour

• Exploration + secure base behaviour

• separation anxiety

• stranger anxiety

findings of Ainsworth’s strange situation

• 66% of infants were type b secure

• 34% were insecure, 22% being type a and 12% being type c

• suggests that a secure attachment develops due to a consistently sensitive responsive mother

Strengths of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation

• lab experiment - highly controlled, standardised, high internal validity + reliability

• predictive validity - outcome can predict babies’ future development + securely attached babies have greater success at school, insecure resistant babies are associated with bullying and mental health problems → high construct validity

Weaknesses of A Strange Situation

• culture bound - experiment done in USA and UK so not representative of collectivist cultures. → e.g. Japanese babies rarely experience seperation so may have higher anxiety than observed → etic approach used, decrease population validity

• low ecological validity - mother knows her behaviour is being monitored so demand characteristics, decrease internal validity + lab, low mundane realism

describe type a attachment

• insecure avoidant

• infant doesn’t use caregiver as secure base

• low separation and stranger anxiety

• avoids contact at reunion stage

• caregiver doesnt show sensitive responsiveness

describe type b attachment

• secure

• infant uses caregiver as safe base

• moderate separation and stranger anxiety

• requires and accepts comfort upon reunion

• caregiver shows consistent sensitive responsiveness

describe type c attachment

• insecure resistant

• very clingy, seeks high proximity

• high separation and stranger anxiety, caregiver shows inconsistent sensitive responsiveness

• upon reunion, infant is ambivalent - craving yet rejecting caregivers attention

collectivist culture meaning

emphasises family and work goals above individual needs and desires so people are interdependent

e.g Japan

individualistic culture meaning

emphasises personal indépendance and achievements, resulting in a sense of competition

meta analysis meaning

a researcher looks at a number of studies that have investigated the same topic in order to reach a general conclusion about a particular hypothesis

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg

conducted meta analysis of different strange situation from around the world and found secure attachment was always the most common

AO3 for Van Ijzendoorn’s meta analysis

✅meta analysis - large sample + reduces influence of anomalous results + secondary data so ↓ bias ↑ internal validity + reliability + allows generalisation to different populations, increase population validity

✅emic approach - Ijzendoorn used research from a German and Japanese team, increasing population validity and decreasing misunderstandings

❌lacks temporal validity - Ijzendoorn & Kroonberg study in 1988, but in 2014, researcher found less secure attachment types and more avoidant in Germany, (individualistic)

❌ethnocentric - imposed etic → uses a Strange Situation (designed in US) to determine attachment types on non-western cultures, so it’s meaningless to compare attachment types across cultures

Outline Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg’s Procedure

• Aim - to find out if there were differences between country’s attachment types

• procedure - meta analysis examined 32 studies where strange situation occurred. Studies were conducted in 8 countries, 15 studies in USA, yielded results for 1990 children

• Secure was most common among all cultures (e.g. 50% in China & 75% in UK)

• Insecure Avoidant least common in collectivist cultures

• Insecure resistant least common in individualistic cultures

Outline Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation

• states prolonged early separation from mother leads to affectionless psychopathy (no guilt, caring behaviour or empathy) and low intellectual development (low IQ) (Goldfarb)

• critical period of 2-2.5 years

• separation (being physically away from caregiver) can lead to deprivation (lack of emotional care) if alternative emotional care isn’t offered

Outline Aim & Procedure of Bowlby’s 44 Thieves Study

• Aim - examine links between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation

• Procedure - interviewed 44 juvenile thieves and their families, comparing them to a control group of non-offenders. He assessed their emotional responses for signs of affectionless psychopathy and their backgrounds to identify any history of maternal deprivation.

Findings of Bowlby’s 44 Thieves Study

• 14 of the 44 thieves showed signs of affectionless psychopathy,

• 12/14 experienced prolonged separation from their mothers during the critical period.

• conclusion → strong link between maternal deprivation and the development of affectionless psychopathy.

Outline Czech Twins Case Study

• It contradicts Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation by demonstrating that the twins, despite early maternal deprivation in critical period, developed normally and formed healthy relationships, suggesting that other factors can mitigate the effects of separation.

Strengths of Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation

• Real world application - Bowlby’s theory has influenced child care practices, emphasizing the importance of stable relationships and early emotional bonds. Before his theory, children were separated from their parents in hospitals but after it resulted in parents being allowed to stay with their children to avoid prolonged separation

• research support - 44 thieves study shows maternal deprivation is linked to affectionless psychopathy

Weaknesses of Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation

• Over exaggeration of deprivation effects - he confused it with privation, e.g Czech twins recovered after maternal deprivation + 44 thieves study were based on prived children (failed to form initial attachment) leading to more serious effects

• Biased - 44 thieves study, the interviews of families relied on self report data so they may have lied about the maternal deprivation the delinquents received, ↓ internal validity

What is institutionalisation

the effects of being in an institution

What are the effects of institutionalisation

• low intellectual development

• disinhibited attachment → a form of insecure attachment where children are equally friendly to ppl they know and strangers

AO1 for Rutter’s English & Romanian Adoptee orphanage research (ERA)

• aim → to test what extent good care makes up for bad institutionalisation early experiences

• procedure → 165 romanian orphans were adopted by British families before or after 6 months old and their emotional development was checked at 4,6,11 and 15 which was compared to a control group of 52 British children who were adopted around same age

• findings → when they first arrived to UK, they showed delated intellectual development. Those adopted after 6 months had higher IQ (102) and showed no disinhibited attachment. Those adopted after 6 months had lower IQ (77) and showed disinhibited attachment and clingy & attention seeking behaviour

• this supports negative effects of institutionalisation

AO1 for Zeanah’s orphanage studies (BEI)

• aim → check attachment types between roman institutionalised orphans and non institutionalised children

• procedure → attachment type of 95 institutionalised romanians vs non institutionalised children was assessed using A strange situation

• findings →74% of non-institutionalised children had secure attachment while 19% of institutionalised romanians had secure attachment

  44% of institutionalised romanians had disinhibited attachment while less than 20% of non-institutionalised children had disinhibited attachment

AO3 for romanian orphan studies

✅real world application - institutionalised care is seen as undesirable and children have 2 ‘key workers’ instead of multiple to form ideal attachments

✅lack of confounding variables - orphans were given away by loving parents so results (low IQ & disinhibited attachment) are less likely to be confounded by other negative experiences

❌lack of adult data