Attachment

Four stages of attachment

1. ASOCIAL (0-8 weeks)

   • behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects is fairly similar but they show preference towards people.

   • have preference for people they have been comforted by.

2. INDISCRIMINATE (2-7 months)

   • start to display obvious social behaviour and a clear preference towards people especially family ones.

   • usually accept cuddles from anyone as have no separation or stranger anxiety.

3. SPECIFIC (7-12 months)

   • babies start to display classic attachment towards the person who they have the most interaction and responses with (65% of time is mother)

   • have anxiety towards strangers and when the figure is absent

4. MULTIPLE (1 year+)

   • extend attachment to multiple people who they regularly spend time with

   • secondary attachments e.g. grandparents, babysitter, siblings

Schafer and Emerson’s study of attachment

did an observational study on the formation of early infant-caregiver interactions

60 babies (31 male, 29 female) in skilled working class families from Glasgow

visited babies in home every month for a year and again at 18 months, and asked mum questions about baby’s protests in 7 everyday activities e.g. baby left alone in a room

also assessed stranger anxiety, their response to unfamiliar people, by the researcher approaching the child at each home visit

Evaluating Schaffer and Emerson’s study of attachment

Good external validity: most of the observations were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to the researchers so babies would behave naturally as with the parent.

• mothers being observers will not be objective- they will be biased about what they notice and how accurately they report it.

Practical application for day care

• asocial and indiscriminate: straight forward as babies can be comforted by a skilled adult- should start day care now

• specific: day care with unfamiliar adult (especially beginning it) may be problematic

Study done longitudinally so has good internal validity as no participant variables

Poor evidence for asocial stage- measuring attachment here is hard as young babies have poor coordination and are fairly immobile so anxiety may be shown in subtle unobservable ways which makes it difficult for mothers to observe and report back.

Only used one sample in an individualistic culture (collectivist cultures tend to have multiple attachments from an early age) meaning research is not generalisable

Just because a baby gets distressed when an individual leaves the room does not signify attachment

• Bowlby: children often get distressed when a playmate leaves but this does not signify attachment

• therefore Schaffer and Emerson’s study does not distinguish between secondary attachment and playmates

Reciprocity

when each person responds to the other and elicits a response (turn taking)

e.g. baby smiles, the mum talks back

• alert phases- babies periodically signal that they are ready for interaction and pay close attention to expressions (mums notice 2/3 of time)

• active involvement- infant and caregivers initiate interactions and respond appropriately. Brazelton

Interactional Synchrony

perform actions in unison to mirror each other

• babies will be depressed if there is no synchrony or they are not responded to e.g. still face, Tronick

• Meltzoff and Moore: begins as young as 2 weeks old. an adult displayed one of 3 facial expressions or a gesture and there then was a significant association with how the baby would respond.

• Isabella: observed 30 mother and babies together and their synchrony, assessed their quality of attachment. high levels of synchrony associated with better quality mother- baby attachments.

Attachment and the 3 characteristics

A particular type of emotional bond between the infant and the caregiver shown with reciprocal affection, frequent interaction, proximity and selectivity.

1. Proximity- try to stay physically close to attachment figure

2. separation distress- people show signs of anxiety when attachent figure leaves their presence

3. secure based behaviour- make regular contact even when we are independent of them e.g. baby returning to mum when playing

evaluating caregiver interactions

filmed observations in a lab meaning other distractions can be controlled, observations can be recorded in order to analyse them later, and different researchers can agree on the views of data. babies will not show demand characteristics

research into care-giver interactions has practical applications in parenting skills training.

• Crotwell, after a 10 minute ineraction therapy, interactional synchrony was improved in 20 pairs.

hard to observe and interpret a baby’s behaviour as studying small hand movements or subtle changes in expression which could be a response or may just be a twitch e.g. a smile may be a response or could just be passing wind. you cannot know from the baby’'s perspective

observing a behaviour does not tell us its developmental importance

• Feldman: synchrony and reciprocity give names to patterns in behaviour but are not useful in understanding child development as does not explain the purpose

→ evidence from other researchers that early interactions are important e.g. Isabella- interactional synchrony helped make good quality attachments, relieve stress and improve language skills

Statistics on attachment to the father

sole first attachment- 3%

joint first attachment- 27%

75% of babies formed attachment with their father after 18 months

Grossman’s research on role of the father

did a longitudinal study on babies till teenage years

researchers looked at both parent’s behaviour and relationship with child, and compared it to the quality of baby’s later attachment to other people

• quality of mother attachment was related to attachment in adolescene (not the father)

• quality of the father’s play with baby was related to adolescence attachment

• fathers have different role from mothers- more to do with play and stimulation, less to do with emotional development

Field’s research on role of the father

filmed 4 month old babies in face-to-face interactions with:

primary caregiver mother

primary caregiver father

secondary caregiver fathers

• primary caregivers (mothers and fathers) spent more time smiling, imitating and noticing- part of attachment process in reciprocity and interactional synchrony

• a baby’s relationship with their primary attachment figure forms basis of all later close emotional attachments

• when fathers are primary caregivers they are able to adopt the emotional role typically associated with mothers

• fathers only express emotion focysed and responsiveness when they are primary caregivers

Evaluating the role of the father

Research can offer economical advice to parents

• parents and prospective parents often worry who should be the primary caregiver (may even stop them having kids)

• mothers may feel pressured to stay at home, and fathers at work due to stereotypes

• this research can be reassuring as fathers can be primary caregivers e.g. mother can be breadwinner and dad stay at home if that is best for their family’s income

Lack of clarity over the question ‘what is the role of the father’

• some researchers want to understand role of the father for:

  • secondary attachments: fathers have a distinct role in play

  • primary attachments: they can be nurturing

• therefore hard to answer as a specific role is not being discussed

Findings vary according to the methodology used

longitudinal studies show fathers as secondary attachment figures have distinct roles in play and stimulation

• this suggests, however, that children whose parents are lesbian or whose mother is single, lack something

• McCallum and Golombok: show children from non- nuclear families do not develop differently

• therefore, questions about father’s distinct role remain unanswered

→ however, lines of research may not actually be in conflict as parents in non-nuclear families may adapt to include this role played by fathers so children are not bereft. when present, fathers have distinct role but families can adapt to not having a father.

Preconceptions about how fathers should behave (through media e.g. father’s stricter) may cause unintentional researcher bias so researchers record what they expect to see rather than objective reality

Lorenz’s research, animal studies of attachment

randomly divided a large litter of goose egg

• half hatched with mum in their natural environment

• half hatched in an incubator, and the first moving object they saw was Lorenz

Despite putting them all with the mother, half stayed with mum and half followed Lorenz around everywhere

Imprinting: bird species that are mobile from birth attach to the first moving object they see

• Lorenz said there was a critical period where imprinting takes place- for babies this was in the first 2-5 years otherwise there is irreversible consequences for later relationships, intelligence, behaviour and psychology.

Sexual imprinting: peacoack reared in the reptile house with a tortoise as an adult would only show mating behaviour to the tortoise

Evaluation of Lorenz

research support, regolin and Vallortigara

• chicks were exposed to simple shape combinations that moved e.g. triangle with a rectangle

• then showed a range of combinations- however they followed the original most closely

• shows young animals born with innate mechanism to imprint on moving object in critical period

Poor generalisability to humans

• cannot generalise findings and conclusions from birds to humans. mammalian attachment system is quite different and more complex e.g. 2 way attachment

Guiton: chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves and tried to mate with them as adults- with experience they learned to prefer mating with other chickens showing imprinting does not have a permanent effect

Harlow’s research, animal studies of attachment

soft object serves most of the function of a mother

reared 16 baby monkeys with 2 wire model ‘mothers’: one was plain wire and one was covered in cloth and they both dispensed milk to 8 of the monkeys

baby monkeys cuddled cloth covered monkeys in preference to plain wire and cuddled cloth when scared

→ contact comfort was important than food for attachment

followed monkeys into adulthood: maternal deprivation, aggressive, unsociable, undeveloped, unskilled at mating killed their children

had critical period of 90 days

Evaluation of Harlow

important real world application

• helps social workers and clinical psychologists understand lack of bonding experience may be risk factor in child development

• early relationships are key for later social development

• understand importance of attachment figures for monkeys

poor ability to generalise findings and conclusions from monkeys to humans.

• more similar to humans than Lorenz’s birds but human brain and behaviour still more complex

Ethical issues of research as caused severe and long term distress to monkeys (distress human like)

→ cost benefit analysis

Learning theory, classical conditioning

UCS food → UCR pleasure

NS caregiver → no response

UCS + NS food and caregiver → UCR pleasure

CS caregiver → CS pleasure

when the same person provides food over time they become associate with food, then the sight of the caregiver produces pleasure (love) so the attachment forms.

Operant conditioning, Learning theory

babies cry for comfort and receive positive reinforcement as they are then rewarded through food meaning that they are more likely to repeat the behaviour due to the positive consequence.

the caregiver avoids negative consequences when they feed because the baby no longer cries meaning the caregiver is more likely to repeat this behaviour

2 way process strengthens attachment

Attachment is a secondary drive, learning theory

hunger is a primary drive because it is innate and biological so we are motivated to eat in order to reduce this.

Sears: as caregivers provide food, attachment as a secondary drive is learnt through the caregiver giving satisfaction through food

Evaluation learning theory

Elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of attachment

• unlikely that association with food plays a central role in attachment but conditioning may still play a role.

• e.g the baby feels more warm and comfortable with a particular adult so wants them more

→ conditioning may not be an adequate explanation as babies are more active in attachment than passive.

Lack of support from animal studies

• Lorenz’s geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw which was separate from any food

• Harlow’s monkeys preferred the cloth covered surragate even those who were fed by the plain wire one

• shows that other factors help to form attachments.

Lack of support from studies of babies

• Schaffer and Emerson: babies tend to form their main attachment to their mother regardless of whether she fed them.

• Isabella: the quality of attachment was dependent on the interactional synchrony.

• shows that food is not the main factor- this is just reductionist as just 1 aspect of care

Hay and Vespo: parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviours e.g. hugging. Parents also reinforce this by showing approval when kids show their own attachment behaviours back e.g. holding hand, hugging

→ suggests infants learn attachment through social interactions and imitations of behaviour. this is a 2 way interaction so supports reciprocity.

Bowlby’s explanation for attachment, monotropy

emphasised the importance on child’s attachment to one caregiver

more time spent with primary attachment figure is better for the child’s development

• law of continuity: care needs to be constant and predictable

• law of accumulated separation: effects of separation add up “safest dose is zero”

Bowlby’s explanation of attachment, social releasers

babies have innate cute behaviours like smiling, laughing and gripping that encourage adult attention. the purpose is to activate adult social interaction to make the adult and child attach (reciprocal)

Bowlby’s explanation of attachment, critical/ sensitive period

when the infant attachment system is active

• maximally sensitive at 6 months but can then last to age 2

• if in attachment is not formed in this time, a child will find it harder to form one later

Bowlby’s explanation of attachment, internal working model (and continuity hypothesis)

child forms a mental representation of relationship with their primary attachment figure which serves a model for what relationships are like.

• having a loving relationship with a primary caregiver means you then expect all relationships to be loving and reliable, and bring these qualities to future relationships

• first relationship has poor treatment means you will form poor relationships, expect poor behaviour and act poorly

• it also affects the child’s later ability to parent as they base their parenting behaviour on how they were parented

→ continuity hypothesis: internal working mode shapes all future attachments long term

Evaluating Bowlby’s theory of attachment

Evidence supporting role of social releasers, BRAZELTON

• observed babies trigger interactions with adults, then instructed adults to ignore babies social releasers

• babies became increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and lay motionless supporting role of social releasers in attachment

Evidence supporting internal working model, BAILEY

• assessed attachment in 99 mothers and their 1 year old, and then also assessed mother’s own attachment to her primary caregiver

• mothers with poor attachment to primary caregiver more likely to have poorly attached children

• shows that the internal working model does impact generations of attachment

→ also other important influences of attachment e.g. genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affects behaviours and parenting

Attachment is innate and universal, TRONICK

• found african tribe with very different child wearing system to western societies still had 1 primary attachment

Real world application in improving childcare

• e.g. fostering instead of orphanages, parents being allowed to stay with children in hospitals, parental leave for adoptions

Laws of continuity and accumlated attachment means mothers who work may negatively affect children’s development causing pressure and like they have to then take the blame for any wrongs. Feminists argue this gives an excuse to restrict mothers

Temperament hypothesis- type of attachment not only influenced by responsiveness and sensitivity of caregiver, but also individual personality.

RUTTER- multi attachment system as all attachments are important and form the internal working model, Bowlby’s monotropic theory is at expense of other key figures like fathers.

what the strange situation was testing for

proximity seeking- baby with good quality attachment will stay fairly close to caregiver

exploration and secure base behaviour- baby with good attachment are confident exploring and occasionally check in with the caregiver

stranger anxiety- close attachment means you have anxiety when stranger approaches

separation anxiety- protest at separation from the caregiver

response to reunion- babies with secure attachment greet caregiver’s return with pleasure

procedure of strange situation, ainsworth

controlled observation with 2 way mirror

100 US 12-month old babies

7 episodes each of which are 3 minutes

1. baby encouraged to explore

2. stranger comes, talks to caregiver then approaches baby

3. caregiver leaves stranger and baby alone

4. caregiver returns and stranger leaves

5. caregiver leaves baby alone

6. stranger returns

7. caregiver returns and is reunited

→ exploration and secure base

→ stranger anxiety

→ separation and stranger anxiety

→ reunion behaviour + exploration and secure base

→ separation anxiety

→ stranger anxiety

→ reunion behaviour

types of attachment, strange situation

secure attachment B- explore happily but show regular proximity seeking and secure base behaviour. moderate separation and stranger anxiety. accept/want comfort at reunion. 60-75%

insecure- lack of sensitive responding, poor subsequent cognitive and emotional development

insecure avoidant A- explore freely without showing secure-base behaviour or seeking proximity. show little stranger or separation anxiety. little effort to make contact at reunion. 20-25%

insecure resistant C- babies seek greater proximity than others and explore less. high levels of separation and stranger anxiety but resist comfort at reunion 3%

evaluation of strange situation

attachment type can predict aspect of baby’s later development

• babies who are securely attached tend to have better outcomes e.g. more success at school, better mental health, less involvement in bullying

• type C and people who don’t fit in have worse outcomes

• validity- shows there are subsequent outcomes

→ not all psychologists think strange situation actually measures attachment but child’s anxiety response to unfamiliar environment. therefore measures more the temperament of child and that effect on attachment behaviour and later development. temperament is a confounding variable.

high inter-rater reliability (agreement between observers)

• BICK: studied trained observers who agreed 94% of time on the attachment type.

• procedure takes place in a controlled conditions and behavioural categories are easy to observe as large movement e.g. stranger anxiety- crawl away

• so confident it does not depend on subjective judgements

evidence for at least 4 attachment types

• minority of children display atypical attachments that do not fit into 3 attachment types

• disorganised attachment D- mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours. generally experienced some neglect and abuse so develop psychological disorders.

measure of attachment only valid for use in some cultures (developed in Britain and the US)

• Japan: mothers rarely separated from babies so high levels of separation anxiety. not actually high rates of insecure resistant babies but just in a culture with little separation. (at reunion mothers also rushed to babies making it harder to see infant’s response)

van IJzendoorn + Kroonenberg, cultural variation

cultural variation- differences in norms and values that exist between people in different groups. concerned with differences in proportion of children of different attachment types.

• looked at differences across and within cultures doing a meta analysis of 32 studies in 8 countries of 1,990 children

→ all countries secure attachment was the norm

individualistic- insecure resistant was 14% or less

collectivist- insecure resistant 25% or more

( have more clingy babies)

→ variations within countries 150% more than between countries e.g. US, secure attachment 46% → 90%

→ insecure avoidant most common in Germany (35%) as focus on independence, and least common in Japan (5%) as rarely separated from mothers

→ secure attachment is the most common showing attachment is innate but cultural practices do have influences.

other studies on cultural variation

Italy, Simonelli- assessed 76 babies aged 12 months.

• 50% secure, 36% insecure avoidant: higher rate of insecure avoidant than previously due to more mothers working for long hours and using professional childcare. Types vary with cultural change.

Korea, Jin- compared Korean proportions to other countries.

• overall proportions of insecure and secure the same but more of resistant, only 1 avoidant.

• this is similar to Japan- have similar child- rearing practices.

evaluating van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research

Using a meta analysis to combine results produces a large sample which increases internal validity as it reduces the impact of anomalous results caused by bad methodology or atypical participants.

made comparisons between countries rather than cultures

• within every country there are different cultures with different child rearing practices

• e.g. tokyo proportions of attachment were similar to western studies whereas a more rural sample had over-representation of insecure resistant individuals

→ particular cultural characteristics of the sample need to be specified.

impact of confounding variables on findings

• studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when compared

• - sample characteristics e.g. social class, age

• - environmental factors e.g. size of room (may look like they explore more and less of a need to proximity seek), interesting toys

→ looking at attachment behaviour in non matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross cultural attachment

tried to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context

• imposed etic- imposed an idea or technique that works in one cultural context to another

• e.g. use of babies response to reunion with caregiver in SS: in US and UK lack of affection may indeed indicate an avoidant attachment but in Germany such behaviour would be more likely interpreted as independence rather than insecurity. → behaviours may not have the same meanings in different cultural context so comparing them across cultures is useless

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation, what is deprivation and the critical period?

emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between the child and their mother.

• prolonged separation- child becomes deprived of emotional care (not when brief and with substitute carer) e.g. can be when mother has separation

critical period (2.5 years but can be up to age 5)

• if child is separated from mother without substitute care they become psychologically damaged.

Bowlby → intellectual development (and Goldfarb)

if deprived of maternal care they would experience delayed intellectual development characterised by abnormally low IQ.

Goldfarb- found lower IQ (classified as intellectual disability)in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and had higher standard of emotional care.

Bowlby → emotional development

affectionless psychopathy- inability to experience guilt about their actions and lacked empathy for their victims. prevents a person from developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality.

44 Thieves

44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing

• all interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy

• families also interviewed to establish whether thieves had had prolonged early separations from mothers

• control: 44 non criminal but emotionally disturbed young people

→ 14/44 affectionless psychopaths

→ 12/12 had experienced prolonged separation in first 2 years

(only 5/30 non affectionless psychopath’s had had separation and only 2 in control group)

→ prolonged separation/ deprivation caused affectionless psychopaths

Evaluating Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

animal studies have demonstrated maternal deprivation

• Harlow’s study where 16 monkeys were separated from mothers and given metal surrogate mothers

• had long term permanent consequences- more aggressive, less sociable, unskilled at mating, killed own offspring

→ after critical period of 90 days effects of maternal deprivation irreversible

poor quality of evidence- Bowlby carried out both family interviews and assessments for affectionless psychopaths

• open to bias as he knew which teenagers he expected to show the signs

• influenced by Goldfarb’s study however this had confounding variables as it was during the war time

confusion between different types of early experience- Rutter argued there was important distinction

• deprivation: loss of primary attachment after attachment has developed

• privation: failure to form any attachment in first place

→ the secure long term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation was more likely to be effect of privation e.g. children Goldfarb studied were prived and kids in 44 thieves study similarly had disrupted early lives.

Bowlby’s idea of a critical period

• damage was inevitable if child didn’t form attachment in critical period

• evidence that good quality aftercare can prevent this e.g. Czech twins experienced severe physical and emotional abuse from 18 months to age 7. were severely damaged but recovered after receiving excellent care.

→ lasting harm not inevitable in severe privation

Institutionalisation, definition and context

effects of living in an institutional setting with little emotional care provided

• Ceausescu required romanian mothers to have 5 children

• many parents could not afford to keep their children so they ended up in huge orphanages in very poor condtions

• many ended up being adopted in UK

Rutter, institutionalisation

followed 165 romanian orphans who had been adopted by UK families

• aim to investigate extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences

• assessed physical, cognitive and emotional development at age 4, 6, 11, 15 and 23

• control group: 52 UK children who were adopted

→ ½ showed signs of delayed intellectual development and majority were severely malnourished at beginning

→ by age 11, adopted children shared differential rates of recovery related to age of adoption

IQ, adopted before 6 months	102
IQ, adopted between 6 months and age 2	86
IQ, adopted after 2 years	77

these differences remained at 16

→ ADHD common

adopted after 6 months: showed signs of disinhibited attachment

Zeanah, institutionalisation

conducted Bucharest early intervention project assessing attachment in 95 romanian kids aged 1-3 who had spent most of their life in institutional care

control: 50 children never in an institution

• used strange situation and asked about unusual behaviour

• e.g. clingy, attention seeking, indiscriminate towards adults (disinhibited)

→ 74% control group were secure while institutional group only 19%

→ 44% institutional ‘disinhibited’ vs less than 20% control group

impacts of institutionalisation

• disinhibited attachment

• intellectual disablity

disinhibited attachment- equally friendly and affectionate towards familiar people and strangers. (have no stranger anxiety)- this is due to an adaptation to living with multiple carers during the sensitive period but not for long enough to form an attachment (some had 50)

intellectual disability- most showed signs of this when they arrived in the UK. However kids who had been adopted before 6 months- had caught up with the control group by age 4 → damage to intellectual development can be recovered

evaluation of romanian orphan studies

helped to improve conditions for children growing up outside the family home

• improved psychologists understanding of early institutional care and how to prevent harm.

• led to improvements in conditions e.g. do not have large numbers of caregivers for each child but have 1-2 key workers who have a central role in emotional care

• institutional care now seen as undesirable and there is more of an effort/movement towards fostering and adoption

→ this avoids the formation of disinhibited attachment.

lack of confounding variables- other orphans studied also had varying trauma so hard to disentangle effects of neglect, physical abuse and bereavement from effects of institutional care. this means it has higher internal validity as results are not confounded by other experiences.

→ however there have may have been other confounding variables. e.g. in romania these institutions had remarkably low quality care such as no comfort or intellectual stimulation. therefore the study reflects poor institutional care which not all institutional care is.

current lack of data on adult development

• latest data looked at kids in early to mid twenties so do not have the current data about longer term effects e.g. on mental health problems, romantic relationships, parental relationships

• as it is a longitudinal study, it will take a long time to study and it may shows that even children adopted after 2 years may catch up with everyone else.

socially sensitive as results show that children who are adopted later typically have poor development.

• these results were published while they were going up

• this means carers, teachers etc. may have changed their expectations and treated them differently which may have led to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Internal working model’ effect on future relationships

baby’s first attachment leads to having a mental representation of this relationship which acts as a model to shape future relationships.

secure attachment- seek functional relationships and behave functionally e.g. affectionate and understanding

insecure avoidant- uninvolved, emotionally distant

insecure resistant- controlling, argumentative

having a bad first attachment brings bad experiences to later relationships which they struggle to form and may behave inappropriately

relationships in early childhood

• kerns

• myron-wilson + smith

kerns: securely attached children form high quality childhood friendship while insecurely attached children have friendship difficulties.

Myron-wilson + smith: assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using questionnaires on 196 children aged 7-11

• secure- uninvolved

• avoidant- victims

• resistant- bullies

relationships in adulthood

• McCarthy

• Bailey

mccarthy- studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when babies on their attachment types

• secure- have best friendships and romantic relationships

• insecure resistant- problems maintaining friendships

• insecure avoidant- struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships

Bailey- internal working model affects child’s ability to parent their own children as they base their parenting off how they were parented. this means attachment types are passed through generations.

• considered attachments of 99 mothers to babies

  • assessed using strange situation

• and to own mothers

  • assessed using interviews on adult attachment

→ majority of mothers had same attachment to own mothers and to babies

love quiz, hazan and shaver: adult relationships 💗

analysed 620 replies top quic in newspaper

1. most important/ current relationship

2. general love experience

3. attachment type by choosing 1 of 3 answers which best described their feelings

• secure, 56%- have good and long lasting romantic experiences

• avoidant, 25%- jealous and have fear of intimacy

• resistant, 19%

attachment and going to uni

Bernier: assessed attachment type in 62 college students, 28 who were about to leave home to begin uni

• after starting uni: when assessed by questionnaire about quality of ongoing relationship with parents, then family related stress

secure and avoidant: no difference is relationships with parents between those who left home and those who did not

resistant: those who had left home had sharp decline in relationships quality with parents and increase in family related stress

evaluation of the influence of early attachment on later relationships

There is supporting evidence linking attachment to later development e.g. fearon and Roisman: early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional wellbeing and attachment to own children.

• how strong this relationships is depends on attachment type and aspect of later development. e.g. insecure avoidant has fairly mild disadvantages for any aspect of development. disorganised attachment is strongly associated with later mental disorder.

→ not all evidence supports close links e.g. Regensburg longitudinal study followed 43 individuals from age 1. at age 16, attachment was assessed and there was no evidence of continuity. therefore it is not clear to the extent which attachment predicts later development.

Early attachment is assessed retrospectively

• most recent research on link between early attachment and later development are not longitudinal as do not follow the same person.

• usually ask adults about relationships with parents then assess the type.

1. asking questions rely on honesty and accurate perception of the participants. they may have to look back on childhood and memories may be inaccurate.

2. very hard to know whether what is being assessed is early attachment or adult attachment.

measures of early attachment used in most studies may lack validity.

existence of confounding variables

• some studies do assess attachment in infancy meaning early attachment is valid, but still have validity problems as associations to then later development may be affected by other variables so does not directly show cause and effect.

• e.g. parenting style may influence both attachment quality and later development, personality also impacted by genetics

therefore cannot be sure if it is early attachment or another factor which is influencing later development.

influence of early attachment is probabilistic

• insecure attachment does not invariably cause increased risk of later developmental problems- no one is doomed to be the victim of bullying or to never have a successful romantic relationship due to their attachment, just an increased likelihood.

• knowing someone’s attachment status means we can help their development, however we may also become too pessimistic and create a self fulfilling prophecy.