Attachment Studies

Feldman + Eidelman (2007)

Feldman + Eidelman (2007)

Mothers pick up on their babies 'alert phases' two-thirds of the time.

Finegood et al (2016)

found that the ability to recognize cues varies from mother to mother and can change due to external factors like stress.

Melzoff + Moore (1977)

Adult displays 3 different facial expressions while baby watches. The babies response was filmed and labeled by independent observers and there was a significant association between expression pulled and infant behaviour.

Isabella et al (1989)

Observed 30 mothers with their babies and found that the quality of a mother-infant attachment was related to the levels of interactional synchrony.

Feldman (2012)

Pointed out that ideas such as synchrony are just observations of behaviour, they don't tell us the purpose.

Schaffer + Emerson (1964)

They observed 60 Glaswegian babies in their homes every month for a year and then again at 18 months. They noted their behaviour every visit and asked the mother about the babies behaviour around stranger and separation anxiety. From there they developed Schaffer's stages of attachment.

Grossman et al (2002)

A longitudinal study of 44 families comparing the father and mother's attachment at 6, 10 and 16 years. Quality of infant attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to children's attachment in adolescents. The quality of the fathers' play in infancy affected the quality of attachment in adolescence.

Field (1978)

Filmed 4 month old babies in face to face interaction with primary caregiver mothers, primary and secondary caregiver fathers. Primary caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smiling, imitating and holding infants than the secondary caregiver fathers. Shows fathers are capable of being the emotion-focused parent.

Lorenz (1952)

Lorenz conducted an experiment in which goslings were hatched either with their mother or in an incubator. Once the geese had hatched from the incubator, they imprinted on Lorenz and followed him everywhere. The geese had a critical period of 32 hours.

Seebach (2005)

suggested baby duck syndrome in which we form an attachment to our first computers

Regolin + Vallortigara (1995)

Newborn chicks were exposed to simple shape combinations that moved and later when a range of shape combinations was presented to them, they followed the original most closely.

Harlow (1958)

Reared 16 rhesus monkeys with two wire-model mothers, in one condition where the cloth mother dispensed milk and the other where the wire mother dispensed milk. The monkeys cuddled the cloth mother for 18:1 hours compared with the wire mother regardless of who dispensed the milk. These monkeys grew up to be socially inept.

Howe (1998)

Informs understanding of risk factor for child abuse so can intervene and help. Also helps care of captive monkeys.

Sears et al (1957)

As caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them, making attachment a secondary drive.

Dollard + Miller (1950)

Proposed that caregiver-infant attachments can be explained through the learning theory (classical and operant conditioning). Emphasises the importance of the caregiver as a provider of food.

Hay + Vespo (1988)

Suggests that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviours and showing approval when babies display their own attachment behaviour.

Bowlby (1958, 1969)

Monotropic theory with law of continuity and law of accumulated separation, social releasers (innate cute behaviour to encourage attachment), critical period (6 month sensitive period), internal working model (first attachment is a framework for relationships).

Brazelton et al (1975)

observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releases and then instructed the primary attachment figures to ignore the baby's social releases. The babies grew distressed and some eventually lay motionless. Also described the interaction as a dance because each partner responds to the others' moves.

Bailey et al (2007)

Assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers with their 1 yr old child and then measured relationship with their own mother. Majority had same attachment type to their own mother as they did with their child.

Kornienko (2016)

Suggested genetic difference in anxiety and sociability also affect the social behaviour in both babies and adults.

Burman (1994)

Feminist perspective points out the negative effect of not encouraging mothers to work and sets them up to take the blame for everything that goes wrong with the child.

Ainsworth + Bell (1970)

Middle-class american children aged 1-1.5 were placed in a controlled room with toys in it that had a two-way mirror and cameras in which researchers could observe the child's behaviour. The procedure had 7 episodes that each lasted 3 minutes long. From there Ainsworth identified 3 different types of attachment.

McCormick et al (2016) + Kokkinos (2007)

Found that toddlers with secure attachment had better outcomes than others, in childhood they had better achievements in school and less involvement in bullying.

Bick et al (2012)

Looked at inter-rater reliability in a team of trained Strange Situation observers and found agreement on attachment type for 94% of tested babies.

Takahashi (1986)

Takahashi found that Japanese babies displayed higher rates of insecure-resistant attachment however he suggests that this is due to the abnormality of the situation.

Main + Solomon (1986)

They identified a fourth category, disorganised (type D) which is a mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours.

Van Ijzendoorn +Kroonenberg (1988)

They conducted a meta-analysis of 32 strange-situation studies across 8 different countries, 15 of which in the USA. A total of 1990 children were tested. Secure was the most popular but ranging from 75% in the UK to 50% in China. Collectivist cultures had higher rates of type C and Individualistic cultures higher rates of type A.

Simonelli et al (2014)

Assessed 76 Italian babies aged 12 months using the strange situation. 50% were secure, with 36% as insecure avoidant. Researchers suggest this is because increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional childcare.

Jin et al (2012)

Assessed 87 babies using the strange situation. Found that Korean attachment rates were very similar to those of Japan. This could be due to their similar child-rearing styles.

Grossman et al (1981)

Strange situation study conducted by a german team included in the van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta-analysis

Bowlby (1944)

44 teenagers accused of stealing were interviewed for affectionless psychopathy and their families were interviewed about whether they suffered maternal deprivation in their childhood. 14/44 thieves were described as affectionless psychopaths. 12/14 had experienced maternal deprivation in the first 2 years of their lives. Only 5 of the remaining 30 had experienced separation.

Levy et al (2003)

Showed effects of maternal deprivation on rats- when separated for as little as a day had a permanent effect on social development.

Rutter (1981)

Said Bowlby had deprivation and privatisation confused - deprivation is loss of attachment figure after the bond has formed whereas privatisation is the failure to form an attachment in the first place. Said effects Bowlby described were the result of privation not deprivation.

Koluchova (1976)

Case study of severely deprived Czechoslovak twins who made remarkable intellectual and emotional recovery when they were placed in a caring social environment. The findings challenged the established theory that the early years of life are a critical period for human social development, which, if not properly developed, would produce irreversible results.

Lewis (1954)

Looked at 500 young people and found no association between early separation and later psychopathy

Gao et al (2010)

Somewhat supported Bowlby's theory that poor quality maternal care was associated with high rates of psychopathy in adults.

Rutter et al (2011)

Followed 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain. At the start, half the adoptees showed signs of hindered intellectual and emotional development. At 11 years old, those adopted before 6 months had a mean IQ of 102 compared to 86 for those adopted after 2 years and that of 77 for those adopted after 2 1/2 years. These differences remained at age 16. Those adopted after 6 months also showed signs of disinhibited attachment.

Zeanah et al (2005)

Assessed attachment in 95 children aged 12-31 months who has serpent the majority of their lives in institutionalized care, compared to control groups of 50 children, who had never lived in an institution. They assessed their attachment type and asked carers about unusual social behaviour eg. clinginess and attention-seeking. 74% of the control group were securely attached compared to 19% of the institutional group. 44% of the institutional group showed signs of disinhibited attachment- compared to 20% of controls.

Kerns (1994)

Said securely attached children have the best quality childhood friendships whereas insecurely attached children later have friendship difficulties.

Myron-Wilson + Smith (1998)

Assessed both the attachment type and bullying involvement using standard questionnaires in 196 children aged 7-11 from London. Secure children were unlikely to be involved in bullying whereas resistant were most likely to be the bully and avoidant to be the victim.

McCarthy (1999)

Studied 40 adult women who had been assessed for their attachment type as a child. Found those who had been securely attached had best adult friendships and relationships. Insecure-resistant women had trouble with friendships and insecure-avoidant had trouble with intimacy in romantic relationships.

Hazan + Shaver (1987)

Analysed 620 replies to an American love quiz that assessed their current relationship, their general love expectations and their attachment type. Found those who were securely attached (56%) reported good, long romantic relationships and avoidant respondents (25%) were jealous and had fears of intimacy.

Fearon + Roisman 2017

Concluded early attachment predicts later attachment , emotional well being and attachment to own children.

Becker-Stoll et al (2008)

Followed 43 individuals form the age of one year , at age 16 their attachment style was assessed and their was no evidence of continuity.