Psychology - Attachment

AQA A-Level Psychology Attachment

attachment

a close emotional relationship between two people, characterised by mutual affection and a desire to maintain proximity (closeness)

reciprocity

responding to the actions of another with a similar action, where the action of one person (the caregiver) is designed to elicit a response from the other partner (baby) e.g. baby smiles if caregiver talks to them

Brazelton’s theory

that basic rhythm is an important precursor to later communications - the regularity of an infant’s signals allows a caregiver to anticipate the infants behaviour and respond appropriately which lays the foundation for later attachment

interactional synchrony

when two people interact they tend to mirror (same/similar action) what the other is doing in terms of their facial and body movements (includes imitating emotions as well as behaviours) e.g. caregiver sticks tongue out, the infant does the same

Meltzoff + Moore study

babies aged 2-3 weeks old were shown facial gestures e.g. sticking tongue out and manual gestures e.g. waving fingers in order to investigate their abilities to imitate → could imitate both and is an important building block for later social and cognitive development

Tronick et al (STRENGTH of reciprocity)

mothers who had been enjoying a dialogue with their baby were asked to stop moving and maintain a static, unsmiling expression - babies would try to tempt the mother into interaction by smiling themselves and would become puzzled and increasingly distressed when their smile did not provoke the usual response they expect

Condon and Sander (STRENGTH of reciprocity)

analysed frame by frame video recordings of infant movements to find they coordinated their actions in sequence with adult speech to form a kind of turn taking conversation

GENERAL STRENGTH of reciprocity and interactional synchrony

can be explained as being adaptive for the infant’s survival (monotropic theory)

socially sensitive (LIMITATION of reciprocity and interactional synchrony)

suggests that children may be disadvantaged by particular child rearing practices e.g. mothers who return to work shortly after the child is born, restricting opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony

GENERAL LIMITATION of reciprocity and interactional synchrony

infants are constantly moving and the expressions that are tested occur frequently (e.g. tongue sticking out, yawning etc.) making it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviour

Le Vine et al (LIMITATION of reciprocity and interactional synchrony)

reported that Kenyan mothers have little physical contact or interactions with their infants, but such infants do have a high proportion of secure attachments (cultural differences)

aim of Schaffer + Emerson’s study

to investigate attachment formation

method of Schaffer + Emerson’s study

a longitudinal study was conducted upon 60 newborn babies from a working class area in Glasgow. Observations were conducted as well as interviews with the mothers, asking them about whom they responded to, who caused them distress etc.

findings of Schaffer + Emerson’s study

• at about 7 months 50% babies showed separation anxiety towards one particular adult, usually the mother

• by 10 months most had a specific attachment and about 30% has multiple

• at 18 months almost all had at least two attachments, with 31% having 5 or more

conclusions of Schaffer + Emerson’s study

attachments are more easily made with those who display sensitive responsiveness rather than those who spend the most time with the child → multiple attachments are the norm and of a similar quality

asocial phase of attachment (0-6 weeks)

babies produce similar responses to objects and people although they do have bias towards human like stimuli like faces and eyes → very few produce any kind of protest

indiscriminate attachments (6 weeks - 6 months)

babies become more sociable as they begin telling people apart and preferring to be in human company → easily comforted by anyone and don’t prefer specific individuals yet → no fear of strangers

specific attachments (7 - 9 months)

the baby begins to show separation anxiety, protesting when their primary attachment figure leaves them as well as showing a fear of strangers

multiple attachments (10 months +)

babies begin to attach to others, such as siblings, grandparents and other regular caregivers → 75% have formed an attachment with father by 18 months and 30% had 5+

unreliable data (LIMITATION of research on stages and multiple attachments)

research based on mothers reports of their infants so social desirability may be a factor (may be less sensitive to infants’ protests etc.)

biased sample (LIMITATION of research on stages and multiple attachments)

working class population thus the findings may not apply to other social groups

lacks time validity (LIMITATION of research on stages and multiple attachments)

sample from the 1960s - parental care of children has changed considerably since then = more women go out to work so many children cared for outside the home or fathers stay at home and care for the children

GENERAL LIMITATION of research on stages and multiple attachments

problem with how multiple attachments is assessed as Bowlby pointed out that children have playmates as well as attachment figures (may be distressed when a play mate leaves the room but doesn’t signify attachment)

Geiger (research into multiple attachments and the role of the father)

fathers adopt a play mate role wheras mothers adopt a caregiver role. Fathers are more playful, physically active and generally better at providing challenging situations

Lamb (research into multiple attachments and the role of the father)

found most infants prefer contact with their father when they are in a positive emotional state and want to play but when they are in distress, they prefer contact with their mother

Verissimo et al (research into multiple attachments and the role of the father)

found that the quality of the relationship between fathers and toddlers significantly correlated with the number of friends at preschool, and appeared to be more important than the attachment between a toddler and their mother in subsequent childhood friendships

children without fathers

often been seen to do less well at school and have higher levels of risk taking and aggression, especially in boys showing they prevent negative developmental outcomes

hormones (LIMITATION of research on the role of the father)

female hormones (oestrogen) create higher levels of nurturing and therefore women are biologically predisposed to be the primary attachment figure

Field (LIMITATION of research on the role of the father)

filmed 4-month old babies in face to face interactions with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiver fathers → showed both primary care giver mothers and fathers spent more time, smiling, imitating and holding infants (can take on role of main caregiver and adopt behaviours of mother)

Maccallum (LIMITATION of research on the role of the father)

children growing up in single or same sex parent families do not develop any differently from those in two parent heterosexual families

social factors (LIMITATION of research on the role of the father)

most studies focused on female single mothers from poor socio-economic backgrounds so may be a social factor relating to poverty that produces these negative outcomes

GENERAL LIMITATIONS of research on the role of the father

1. could simply be the result of traditional gender roles, women expected to be more caring and nurturing

2. fathers play a significant ‘backstage’ role by offering financial and practical support to the mother which indirectly benefits the infant

aim of Konrad Loren’s study on imprinting

to investigate the mechanisms of imprinting where the youngsters follow and form an attachment to the first large moving object they meet

method of Konrad Loren’s study on imprinting

a clutch of goose eggs were randomly divided into two groups where half the eggs were hatched with a mother goose in their natural environment whilst the other hatched in an incubator and first saw Lorenz as a moving object

results of Konrad Loren’s study on imprinting

incubator groups followed Lorenz everywhere whereas the control group followed the mother

also noted how imprinting would only occur within a brief set time period of between 4-25 hours after hatching

Guiton (STRENGTH of Lorenz’s study)

demonstrated leghorn chicks exposed to yellow rubber gloves for feeding during their first weeks became imprinted on the gloves showing young animals are not born with a predisposition to imprint on a specific type of object but on any moving object present during the critical window

theoretical value (STRENGTH of Lorenz’s study)

influenced Bowlby’s idea of a critical period in human babies (a specific time period within which an attachment between carer and infant must form)

issue with animals (LIMITATION of Lorenz’s study)

can’t generalise findings from birds to humans as it seems that the mammalian attachment system is quite different from that in birds e.g. mammalian mother shows more emotional attachment to young

aim of Harlow’s study for the importance of contact comfort

to identify the factors involved in attachment and bonding in monkeys (closer to humans than geese)

method of Harlow’s study for the importance of contact comfort

baby monkeys separated from mother’s at birth and given a choice of substitute mother

1. made of wire and ‘produced milk’ via a feeding bottle

2. covered in toweling cloth

measured time with each mother as well as devising ways of frightening babies e.g. mechanical teddy bear 'and ‘monster mothers’

results of Harlow’s study for the importance of contact comfort

monkeys spent more time with the toweling mother whe given a choice (18hrs/day vs 2hrs/day) even when could only obtain milk from wire mother

1. frightened: rushed to cloth mother

2. exploring new toys: keep one foot on cloth mother

conclusions of Harlow’s study for the importance of contact comfort

Rhesus monkeys have an innate need for contact comfort, suggesting that attachment concerns emotional security more than food

theoretical value (STRENGTH of Harlow’s study)

influenced Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis where he saw any disruption of attachment bond as having serious, irreversible effects - changed advice given

ethical issues (LIMITATION of Harlow’s study)

creating serious lasting emotional harm as the monkeys later found it difficult to form relationships with their peers

GENERAL LIMITATION of Harlow’s study

the two stimulus objects varied in more ways than just being cloth covered or not e.g. heads were different (cloth = more attractive) so lack internal validity

learning theory

proposes that all behaviour is learned through either classical or operant conditioning and is not innate

classical conditioning

learning through association

operant conditioning

learning to repeat a behaviour, or not, depending on its consequences (reward or punishments)

specific classical conditioning for attachment

BEFORE CONDITIONING

• food (UCS) → pleasure (UCR)

• caregiver (NS) → no response

DURING CONDITIONING

• food (UCS) + caregiver (NS) → pleasure (UCR)

AFTER CONITIONING

• caregiver (CS) → pleasure (CR)

positive reinforcement in operant conditioning

if a behaviour produces a positive consequence, it is likely to be repeated e.g. cry for comfort as leads to a response from caregiver

negative reinforcement in operant conditioning

the removal of an unpleasant stimulus and increases the frequency of the behaviour e.g. crying removing the unpleasant feeling of being hungry

animal studies (LIMITATION for learning theory)

attachment formed to the cloth mother not the wire mother (who provided food) showing how contact comfort is more important than feeding as basis for attachment + Lorenz’s study shows geese imprinting before they were even fed/comforted

Schaffer + Emerson (LIMITATION for learning theory)

39% of infants formed first attachments to a person who did not carry out caretaking tasks such as feeding, challenging the claim attachments are based on this

reductonist (LIMITATION for learning theory)

explains complex attachment behaviours in the simplest way possible (via stimulus-response pairing) meaning internal cognitive processes and emotional nature of attachment is ignored

research findings (LIMITATION for learning theory)

from reciprocity and interactional synchrony contradicts learning theory as difficult to see how complex interactions would develop if attachment was purely off feeding

alternative explanations (LIMITATION for learning theory)

Bowlby suggests attachment is innate and not learnt as it enhances survival

Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment

states attachment is innate, adaptive process for both infant and parent as helps ensure warmth, food and protection (stems from natural selection)

innate programming (Bowlby)

infants are born programmed to become attached and adults are programmed to form attachments with their young

Infants emit social releases e.g. smiling, crying that provoke caregiving responses from adults which helps the attachment process

critical period (Bowlby)

suggests there is a critical period within which attachments must form (before the age of 2 and a half years) and if this is disorientated, then the child will suffer from permanent emotional damage

monotropy (Bowlby)

believed that one attachment relationship in particular, the one with the primary caregiver is much more important and the infant is biased to this one individual

internal working model (Bowlby)

primary attachment relationship provides the infant with a ‘template’ of what future relationships will be like (if primary caregiver = warm and caring = develop good relationships with others)

Lorenz’s findings (STRENGTH of Bowlby’s monotropic theory)

supports innate programming as he demonstrated imprinting in chicks, as they attached themselves to the first moving object they saw and followed it straight after birth = innate

Hazan and Shaver (STRENGTH of Bowlby’s monotropic theory)

supports Bowlby’s internal working model as they asked people to respond to a love quiz and found strong relationship between childhood relationships with parents and experiences in future relationships (tend to trust others and had belief in lasting love if securely attached)

reciprocity + interactional synchrony (STRENGTH of Bowlby’s monotropic theory)

supports the role of social releasers eliciting caregiving from a caregiver and the behaviours the infant exhibits cannot be learned as occur straight after birth

Schaffer + Emerson (LIMITATION of Bowlby’s monotropic theory)

doesn’t support monotrophy as they found evidence of multiple attachments (by 5 months only 13% were attached to only one person with some having 5+)

concept of critical period (LIMITATION of Bowlby’s monotropic theory)

close attachments can be formed outside the critical period as orphaned children adopted around 3 or 4 have shown that children above 2 and ½ are still capable of forming strong attachments to adoptive parents

method of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation

infants aged 1 year to 18 months were observed through video cameras in a purpose built lab playroom

1. mother and infant enter the room. child placed on floor and free to explore toys

2. after about 3 minutes, a stranger enters, talks briefly with the mother and then attempts to interact and play with infant

3. the mother leaves the room whilst the stranger comforts the baby if upset

4. mother returns and stranger leaves

5. mother departs again, leaving the baby alone in the room

6. stranger re-enters and offers to comfort and play with the baby

7. mother returns and the stranger leaves

what did Ainsworth investigate

1. willingness to explore

2. stranger anxiety

3. seperation anxiety

4. reunion behaviour

insecure avoidant attachment (type a)

22% of infants

• infants explore the room but don’t seek proximity to the mother (keep distance and avoid closeness)

• little distress at mothers departure (level of play not affected)

• show little stranger anxiety

• don’t seek comfort from mother at reunion

secure infants (type b)

66% of infants

• use their mother as a safe base and are happy to explore the room when she is present

• showed distress by crying when she leaves the room

• wary of strangers (show stranger anxiety)

• settled quickly by the mother when she returns

insecure-resistant attachment (type c)

12% of infants

• clingy and fussy and cannot settle to play in the strange environment

• very distressed at separation

• show extreme stranger anxiety

• not easily comforted when mother returns (seek proximity but then reject her - appear to be angry)

conclusion of Ainsworth’s strange situation

behaviour of the mother was a major factor in determining the quality/type of attachment → sensitive mothers interest infants' signals and respond appropriately (= secure infants)

STRENGTH of Ainsworth’s strange situation

inter-rater reliability (0.94) and test-retest reliability is high

WARTNER = found 78% children were classified the same way at 1 and 6 years old

LIMITATIONS of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (x5)

1. LAMB = children behave differently with different people (e.g. father vs mother)

2. artificial + may be impacted by social desirability bias

3. MAIN + SOLOMAN = proposed insecure disorgansied type which has a lack of consistent patterns in behaviour

4. highly unethical as caused distress to infants

5. culture bound

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) study

meta-analysis of 32 studies conducted in 8 countries using the strange situation

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) results (x5)

1. secure attachments were most common in all cultures

2. lowest % of secure attachment was shown in China/Germany + highest in Britain

3. avoidant attachment was most common in West Germany and rare in Israel and Japan

4. resistant attachment was highest in Israel and Japan and lowest in Britain and Sweden

5. variation in attachment type between cultures but 1.5x more within cultures

STRENGTH of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg

large sample size as studied nearly 2000 babies, increasing validity by reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by unusual participants

LIMITATIONS of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (x3)

1. compared countries not cultures

2. strange situation is based upon American assumptions e.g. willingness to explore may not be a sign of secure attachment in other cultures

3. issue with methodology as psychologists work in different ways so difficult to compare results

Takahashi (1990) study

studied 60 middle class Japanese infants

Takahashi results

0% insecure avoidant, 68% securely attached and 32% insecure resistant

attributed to Japanese children experiencing less separation and are almost never left alone, meaning taught avoidant behaviour as impolite

LIMITATIONS of Takahashi (x3)

1. unethical as the majority of infants experienced high levels of distress

2. often stopped half way due to distress caused

3. GROSSMAN + GROSSMAN = 40-50% of German infants classified as insecurely avoidant as culture involves keeping some interpersonal distance so don’t engage in proximity seeking behaviours

Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis (MDH)

the emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their primary caregiver

proposed continuous care from a mother is essential for normal psychological development

Robertson + Robertson (short term effects of maternal deprivation)

studied effects of young children separated from their parents (short term) under circumstances such as a child spending time in hospital

1. protest = child cries in distraught manner + panic

2. despair = child is apathetic and withdrawn (sleep + eat poorly)

3. detachment = appears recovered but does not show interest when caregiver returns

long term affects of maternal deprivation

1. affectionless psychopathy = the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions for others

2. separation anxiety = fear that separation will occur again e.g. clingy behaviour

3. detachment = child becomes self-sufficient and don’t rely on parent emotionally

4. abnormally low IQ

aim + method of Bowlby’s 44 thieves study

to test the MDH by comparing 44 juvenile thieves with a control group who had emotional problems but had not committed any crimes

findings of Bowlby’s 44 thieves study

32% of the thieves but 0% of controls had affectionless psychopathy and 86% of these had experienced repeated early separations

STRENGTHS of MDH (x3)

1. ROBERTSON + ROBERTSON = John = spent 9 days in residential nursery and showed extreme express BUT rejected mother when returned

2. Laura = showed similar extreme distress and despair as above when hospitalised for a routine operation + was separated from her mother

3. changed treatment of children in hospitals as in the 1950s, parents were discouraged from visiting children where today, encouraged to stay overnight in hospital etc.

LIMITATIONS of MDH (x2)

1. didn’t distinguish between different kinds of deprivation = either deprived from a caregiver’s presence OR privation (lack of any attachment - could be causing the irreversible effects)

2. LEWIS = partially replicated the 44 thieves study when looking at 500 young people → showed prolonged separation didn’t predict criminality

institutionalisation

a term for the effects of living in an institutionalisational setting (place like a hospital or orphanage where children live for long continuous periods of time, often with little emotional care provided)

effects of institutionalisation (x4)

1. disinhibited attachment - children don’t discriminate between people they choose as attachment figures so treat strangers with inappropriate familiarity and attention seeking behaviours

2. delayed physical development (small)

3. poor parenting - HARLOW = those deprived of any attachment were very poor parents and had difficulty with social relationships - QUINTON ET AL = ex institutional women rated as lacking warmth with own children

4. delayed intellectual development/low IQ due to absence of appropriate stimulating experiences

Rutter’s study

studied 165 Romanian children who spent their early lives in institutions at regular intervals (ages 4, 6, 11 and 15) to assess physical, cognitive and social development

111 adopted before age of 2 whilst 54 were adopted by the age of 4

findings compared to 52 British adopted children

Rutter’s results (x3)

1. half adoptees showed signs of mental retardation when they first arrived in UK

2. age of 11 = adopted children showed differential rates of recovery related to age (mean IQ of those adopted before 6 months = 102 vs 6 months - 2 years = 86 and after 2 = 77)

Hodges and Tizard’s study

65 British children were studied in a natural experiment where they had been placed in an institution when they were less than 4 months

by 4, 24 of them were placed in adoptive families and 15 returned home

adopted children had good attachments to their parents + both groups fared less well outside the family (peer relationships etc.)

Quinton’s study

50 women who had been raised in an institution were compared with a control group

ex-institutional women had extreme difficulties when they became parents - children often placed into foster care as less responsible and sensitive to their own children

STRENGTH of research on institutionalisation

enhanced our understanding of the effects of institutionalisation which has then had positive application (encourages early adoption as display less of the negative effects + recovery is possible)

LIMITATIONS of research on institutionalisation (x3)

1. CLARK + HANISEE = investigated the progress of a group of Asian orphans (mostly war) who had been adopted into stimulating middle class homes despite considerable deprivation - after 2-3 years = above average in intellectual ability + social maturity

2. lack of control of confounding variables as natural setting (innate problems or other factors like care from foster family)

3. attrition (drop outs) is a problem as this may leave a biased sample as less motivated ones drop out

internal working model

the mental representations we all carry with us of our attachment to our primary caregiver affect our future relationships (provides a template) as they carry perception of what relationships are really like

childhood relationships

affiliations with other people in childhood, including friends, classmates and adults

KERNS

attachment type is associated with the quality of peer relationships in childhood as securely attached infants tend to go on to form the best quality childhood friendships whereas insecurely attached infants have friendship difficulties

MYRON-WILSON ET AL

bullying behaviour can be predicted by attachment type as used standard questionnaires on 196 children aged 7-11 from London → secure children were very unlikely to be involved in bullying, insecure avoidant children were most likely to be victims and insecure resistant most likely to be bullies