attachment A level Psychology AQA

Stages of attachment

Pre attachment/asocial stage: occurs from 0 - 6 weeks. Babies haven’t formed an attachment. no preference for one guy.

Indiscriminate attachment stage: occurs from 6 weeks to 7 months. Babies recognised

familiar people and prefer them over unfamiliar people but haven’t formed an attachment yet.

Specific/ Discriminant attachment: occurs from 7 - 9 months. Babies formed a specific attachment to there caregiver. Show separation and stranger anxiety

Multiple attachment: occurs from 9 months: form attachments with other people other then there main caregiver

Schaffer and Emerson

Longitudinal, naturalistic observational study. Observed 60 babies from working class background with their mothers and family in day to day life, from birth to 18 months. Measured attachment by testing separation and stranger anxiety, did the babies showcase this. They Conducted interviews with families asking them questions of behaviour of babies and their relationship with them.

Schaffer and Emerson findings

1: results supported existence of four stages of attachment

2: super common for babies to form multiple attachments. 87% of babies formed attachments to at least 2 adult figures. 31% formed 5 or more attachments

3: babies main attachment figure wasn’t always the main care giver and wasn’t always the mother.

4: babies who formed the strongest attachment to care giver had caregivers who were sensitive to their needs and responded quickly when baby interacted with them. They called it sensitive responsiveness.

Schaffer and Emerson evaluation

Strength: Naturalistic observation, infants and caregivers were observed as they went about their usual daily life. high ecological validity, therefore generalise to how the babies and the caregivers behave in there everyday life.

Weakness: may have been prone to observer bias. The tendency for researcheres to see what they expect to see in everyday life. Researchers may have had a hypothesis before ie greater sensitive responsiveness leads to stronger attachment, so they expected this and maybe assessed mothers who were more sensitive to have a stronger attachment.

Weakness: the interviews, social desirability bias. To show they are good mums they may have said they spent more time with their kid for example.

Weakness: lack population validity as working class family. May not generalise to the wider population.

Reciprocity

The infant and caregiver both take turns in an interaction, so that they respond to each others actions. More reciprocity care givers and infants shown in interactions the stronger there attachment bond

Interactional synchrony

Caregivers and infant preform similar actions in time with one another. More interactional synchrony = stronger attachment

Condon and sander: study support for caregiver interactions

Analysed frame by frame video recordings of movements made by babies when with their mothers. Found care giver interactions. First observational study to provide evidence that caregivers and infants display interactional synchrony and reciprocity in their actions. However didn’t show evidence if the interactions strengthen attachment.

Isabella et al: study support for caregiver interactions

Used frame by frame analysis of caregiver infant interactions to examine fine details of movements made by babies and mothers. They investigated the strength of the bond between mothers and babies by measuring amount of separation and stranger anxiety. Babies and mothers were observed the first time and then again a few months later to see how interactions develop over time and found that mothers who showed more interactional synchrony and reciprocity had more stronger attachment bonds. Positive correlation.

Evaluation of Isabella et al and Condon and sander support for caregiver interactions

Strength: interactions between babies and mothers were recorded and observed by frame by frame analysis in a controlled environment. As interactions were filmed, researchers could observe interactions in high levels of detail, again and again. So there measurements of what counts as a interactional synchrony and reciprocity Is more reliable.

Weakness: observer bias: the researchers may have misinterpreted the behaviour of babies in a way which fits their hypothesis.

Weakness: correlation doesn’t equal causation. Just cause caregivers and infants who show more interactional synchrony have stronger attachments doesn’t mean interactional synchrony causes it, there could be another variable influencing the perceived correlation.

Strength: Laboratory experiment, controlled extraneous variables.

Learning theory of attachment

Attachments are formed through the experience of being fed by caregivers. The reason babies form attachments with their caregiver is because caregivers feeds them. Attachments are learned through the process of operant and classical conditioning.

Learning theory of attachment: classical conditioning

Food ( unconditioned stimulus ) has an unconditioned response (happiness). The caregiver (neutral stimulus) gives baby no feelings. Mother feeds babies day in day out, so babies associate caregivers with being fed. So they begin to feel the same happy feeling that they feel about food towards their caregiver. So the caregiver becomes a conditioned stimulus, and the baby develops a happy conditioned response to the caregiver. Forming the attachment

Learning theory of attachment: operant conditioning

Positive reinforcement: babies get food when they are next to there caregiver. Over time they learn to associate the action of staying close to there caregiver with the outcome of getting food. The outcome is rewarding so they repeat it, so the action of staying close to the caregiver has been positively reinforced Negative reinforcement: the action of staying close to the caregiver is negatively reinforced by babies learning they can reduce hunger by staying near the caregiver

Harlow

Harlow separated 8 baby monkeys from their mothers. Raised them in a laboratory. They grew up alone in isolation. Monkeys tested in a controlled laboratory setting. Divided monkeys in 2 groups of 4. In both groups instead of real mothers each monkey in their cage was given was given 2 fake surrogate mothers. 1 mother made of an uncomfortable wire material and the other mother was made of a comfortable soft towel material. Across the 2 groups Harlow varied which of the 2 fake mothers provided milk to feed the monkeys. For one group, the milk was on the comforting towel mother, the other group had it on the uncomfortable wire mother. He measured the amount of time babies spent with either mother, and manipulated which fake surrogate mothers provided milk. He hypothesised if learning theory of attachment was correct monkeys would always prefer the mum providing milk, whether or not the mom was made of cloth or wire.

Harlow findings

Harlow found that the babies spent more time with the comfortable towel mother whether or not she provided milk. Even in the groups were the milk was on the wire mother they only went there for the food and went back to spending time with the comforting towel mother. If there was any frightening noise the monkeys would cling to the comforting towel mother. Concluded that attachments are driven by comfort not food. Doesn’t support learning theory of attachment

Harlow evaluation

strength: Labaratory experiment. Controlled all extraneous variables ie living conditions that could affect results, high internal validity. Could establish cause and effect between the type of surrogate mother providing milk and the monkeys behaviour.

Weakness: fake uncomfortable wire mum and comforting towel mum had different looking heads. Maybe they spent more time due to her looking more nicer. Could act as a confounding variable

Weakness: monkeys not humans. Lacks generalisability. Humans more complex then monkeys so doesn’t tell us much about how humans form attachments. May not be representative

Weakness: unethical. Harlow separated monkeys them from there mother which can be distressing for both mother and child. Also they can’t give informed consent. Had no choice but to do it. Emotional distress to monkeys.

Learning theory of attachment evaluation

Strength: Dollard and miller counted how many times babies are fed by there caregivers in there first year of their life. Dollard and miller found that babies get fed over 2000 times by there caregivers. All this time does give the baby time to form an association with being fed and there caregiver. Indicating the learning theory of attachment is believable

Weakness: Harlow. Attachment may be driven by comfort not food. Baby monkeys prefer the comfortable towel mother over the uncomfortable wire mother.

Weakness: isn’t supported by findings from metapelets in Israel. In some parts of isrsel to help mothers go to work in the day, babies are raised by special foster mums called Metapelets. They only feed them and don’t spend much quality time with each baby. When mom returns she doesn’t feed the baby but spends quality time with the baby. According to the Learning theory of attachment the babies would form attachment with the metapelets but they don’t.

Bowlbys Monotropic theory of attachment

Babies are biologically pre programmed to form an attachment to there caregiver, the reason is to ensure survival. By staying near to there caregiver it protects them from danger and ensures survival. Caregivers is also born with a biological preprogrammed instinct to attach to there baby. Even when the baby is annoying they still love the baby. Through evolution over generations babies who formed stronger attachments with caregivers are more likely to survive and reproduce as they are more likely to be protected from danger. And it keeps going on. Social releasers are behaviours that babies have been biologically preprogrammed to do to attract the attention of the caregiver and the caregiver is also biologically pre programmed to respond to them so the baby gets what they need to survive. 4 examples are crying smiling crawling following.He said attachments are Monotropic, babies only form attachments with one special caregiver. He also thought of the critical period. Time window during which babies can form an attachment to their main caregiver. Spans the first 2.5 years of a child’s life. If they don’t form it here they can’t form an attachment. Internal working model - mental schema that is used form expectations and beliefs about all relationships which we build up from our attachment from our caregiver. Baby has a positive relationship with caregiver - positive internal working model. Will form happy positive relationships in the future. Baby has negative relationship with caregiver - negative internal working model. Will form unhappy negative relationships in the future. So the attachment is crucial for future relationships.

Support for bowblys Monotropic theory: Lorenz

Lorenz wanted to understand how geese form attachment to their mother. Lorenz split eggs into 2 groups. one hatched normally in presence of mother, other group hatched in an incubator away from mother in front of Lorenz. Lorenz was first thing the baby geese saw when hatched. Baby geese in control when they hatched straight away attached to the mother. Baby geese in incubator in front of Lorenz attached straight away to the first thing they saw which was Lorenz. not the mother. So he concluded baby geese attach to the first thing they see, even if it’s an object. He called it imprinting.

Lorenz findings and how they support bowbly

the fact imprinting occurred immediately after birth, supports the idea that attachments are biologically pre programmed rather then learned from experience as they had no experience. The fact imprinting was irreversible and only formed on one person or animal supports the idea that attachments are Monotropic. Finally the fact that imprinting could only happen in the first day of the geese birth supports the idea of a critical period.

Lorenz evaluation

Weakness - Results haven’t been replicated. For example gutions research into imprinting baby chicks he found that attachments were reversible and weren’t Monotropic. So not supporting idea of Monotropic attachment.

weakness - results may not generalise to humans. Study conducted on baby geese, who may have diff mechanisms of attachment to human babies.

Evaluation of bowlbys Monotropic attachment: Human studies

Strength: observation of metapelets in Israel support the idea that attachments are formed to the main caregiver who provide emotional support and comfort and that attachments are Monotropic.

Weakness: scahffer and Emerson found 87 percent of babies in the multiple attachment stage formed an attachment to 2 or more caregivers. Not supporting Monotropy.

Evaluation of bowlbys Monotropic theory of attachment: theory application to everyday life.

Strength: led to real positive world changes like longer visiting hours for kids ans longer parental leave to spend time with kids.

weakness:theory led to women feeling guilty if they didn’t stay at home to look after kids.

Deprivation of attachment - Bowlby

according to bowlby children are deprived of an attachment figure when they don’t have a loving attachment figure or are separated from there attachment figure during the critical period.

Bowblys maternal deprivation theory.

If children don’t have a loving attachment figure or are separated from their attachment figure during the critical period they suffer psychological damage. The psychological damage is long lasting and irreversible.

Consequence of deprivation

Impaired cognitive development: deprived kids have low Iq, poor language skills and difficulty with attention and memory.

Impaired emotional development: struggle to control emotions and form relationships with people.

impaired behavioural development: behaving in bad ways and turn to delinquency.

Short term separation and PDD

When children are separated for a short period of time from there main caregiver during the critical period they go through 3 stages of emotion.

Protest: children become angry about being abandoned by there main caregiver

Despair: children get sad and withdrawn and refuse to be comforted

Deattachment: when the caregiver returns the children reject their main caregiver.

Support of maternal deprivation theory - little John

Bowlby and Robertson did a case study on little John. Little John was separated from his caregiver for 9 days while his mother was in hospital, during that time he was placed in a nursery. Bowlby observed his behaviour in the nursery and found when he was first taken from his mother he began to wail and cry on end in the nursery trying to get attention of his nursery. Protest. After, he gave up screaming and he curled up and was sad. Refusing to eat or sleep he was in the despair stage. 9 days later his parents came to pick him up and John ignored her and refused to be held by his mum. Deattachment stage. Even months later after separation John behaved badly, proving that effects are long lasting and irreversible

Little John Evaluation

Weakness: was a case study, may not generalise to other people as it was only looking at little John.

Weakness: confounding variables - in the nursery there were other confounding variables that may have made little John upset. These confounding variables means that we cannot establish causal relationship between John being seperated from his mom and his distress.

Support for maternal deprivation theory. 44 thieves study.

Bowlby conducted a set of interviews on children in his clinic. Comparing 44 thieves to a control group of 44 non thieves. Bowlby found almost 50 percent of the 44 thieves had experienced maternal seperation in childhood, compared to 5 percent of the 44 children in the control group. In the group of thieves 32 percent were classified as affectionless psychopaths and 86 percent of them had experienced maternal separation. So bowlbys results suggest that seperstion from attachment figures in childhood leads to criminal behaviour (impaired behavioural development, delinquency) and affectionless psychopathology.

44 thieves study evaluation

Weakness: people aren’t always accurate when describing their own feelings in interviews that rely on self report. Memory isn’t always accurate. Memory can be biased from post event discussion and leading questions.

Weakness: participants influenced by investigator effects. Maybe have felt bowlby wanted them to say they experienced deprivation. May have pretended to experience more deprivation In their childhood as they thought they was meant to say that, so participants may have responded to demand characteristics.

Weakness: couldn’t directly manipulate his independent variable. Was an event that occurred - natural experiment. compared children who already had the IV happen to them with children who didn’t meaning little control over extraneous variables that can influence his results. Maybe one kid was poor and another was rich for example.

Bowlbys maternal deprivation theory limitations

Weakness: Effects can be reversed. Kolochova preformed a case study on a pair of twins that experienced severe deprivation and abuse until the age of 7. With help of adopted parents they recovered and had good lives. Therefore effects can be reversed.

Weakness: ignores confounding variables. may control variables ie poverty and abuse that can cause psychological damage to children not just deprivation. Hard to establish cause and effect between deprivation and psychological damage

Weakness: socially sensitive as people may be get depressed if they find out that this theory is true as they had a bad upbringing

Weakness: micheal rutter criticised bowblys theory for confusing privation with deprivation. According to rutter privation is when a child never experienced an attachment to a loving care giver and deprivation is when a child forms an attachment to a caregiver but it’s removed. Privation has more serious long term effects then deprivation

Hodges and Tizard - institutionalisation

Investigated 65 children placed in residential nursery before they were 4 months old. Some kids were adopted straight after, some returned to their biological parents and some stayed in the nursery. Hodges and tizard were interested if these experiences had different effects on there long term development and relationships. Studied the behaviours and development of all these kids when they reached the age of 16. 3 groups of kids Compared to control group who weren’t institutionalised. Natrul experiment. Found that children who was adopted Early didn’t develop psychological damage, but those children who were returned to biological parents or stayed in the institution did develop impaired emotional development and impaired behavioural development. Showing effects of privation can be reversed.

Romanian orphans study

Rutter et al conducted a longitudinal, natural experiment comparing 111 Romanian orphans adopted into British homes with 52 British children adopted from British orphanages. Rutter and his team found that British children displayed good and emotional cognitive development even if they were adopted after 6 months old. The Romanians who were adopted before 6 months old showed good emotional development but the Romanian orphans adopted after 6 months old had long term emotional and cognitive impairment. Rutter came to the conclusion that effects of privation can be reveresed even if it’s severe so long as children are introduced to loving homes at a young age. But the longer the children experience severe privation the worse there long term outcomes due to the abuse and neglect that comes from privation. As well as the lack of an attachment figure.

Institutionalisation studies: evaluation

Weakness: longitudinal study prone to attrition. We don’t know the outcome of children of families who refused to take part in the study, its highly likely the families who refused to take part are the ones who thought there child is behaving too badly. So effects of privation may have been underestimated in the study.

Weakness: interviews, social desirability bias, participants give incorrect answers so they appear socially acceptable avoiding negative judgement. Families of adopted children may have said things are going better then they really were, saying there children may have fewer psychological problems then they really did meaning that effects of privation are downplayed.

Attachment styles

Children can have different attachment styles with the caregivers meaning they display different patterns of feelings, behaviours and expectations towards their caregivers.

Secure attachment style

Children with this attachment style form close trusting relationships with their caregivers and have sensitive caregivers. The children display 4 characteristics. 1) they use there caregiver as a safe base. 2) they display moderate stranger anxiety 3) moderate separation anxiety) 4) happy reunion behaviour with there caregiver.

Insecure avoidant attachment

Children with this attachment style are happy to explore without there attachment figure acting as a safe base. Low strange and separation anxiety. Caregivers don’t respond to there needs. Child learns this and becomes indifferent to the caregiver.

Insecure resistant attachment style

Children with this attachment style have caregivers who provide inconsistent care, and the children learn care and love is conditional, they become needy and attention seeking. So these children are 1) unwilling to explore 2) high stranger anxiety 3) high separation anxiety 4) Angry reunion behaviour 5

MARY AINSWORTH - THE STRANGE SITUATION

Ainsworth devised an overt observation called strange situation. to measure types of attachment styles. involved placing a child in a controlled environment. observed under a series of different situations. each episode lasting three minutes. purpose of the Strange Situation is to measure four key behaviours, including: exploration behaviours – how the child explores the environment and whether they use the mother as a safe base; separation anxiety – how the child responds to/behaves when the mother leaves the room; stranger anxiety – how the child responds in the presence of a stranger; and reunion behaviours – how the child acts when reunited with their mother. Depending on how the child responds in the strange situation, Ainsworth classified the children as securely attached, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant.

MARY AINSWORTH RESULTS

Ainsworth observed the 3 main attachment styles. Secure, insecure avoidant and insecure resistant. Found that 70% of children had sensitive mothers with whom they formed trusting, loving attachments, and were happy to use their mom as a safe base, meaning these children had secure attachments to their mothers. 15 percent were indifferent to there mothers. Displayed low separation and stranger anxiety. insecure avoidant attachment style. Finally the last 15 percent showed an insecure resistant attachment style. High seperstion anxiety, high stranger anxiety. Unwilling to use mother as a safe base and angry upon reunion. Found that the attachment style was related to sensitive responsiveness of the mother. Children with responsive mothers had secure attachments. Children with indifferent mothers had insecure avoidant attachment. Children with inconsistent mothers had insecure resistant attachments.

Ainsworth strange situation evaluation

Weakness: lacks population validity. Primarily based on western culture. Was carried out in America. Suffers from culture bias. Findings are culture bound. Can’t be sure it generalises to families in different backgrounds

Strength,: controlled settings. Controls extraneous variables. variables are standardised

Weakness: lacks ecological validity

Strength p: replicable, other researchers can easily repeat the study using the exact same method

Ijzendoorn and kroonerbergc

Conducted a meta analysis of 32 studies using the strange situation method in 8 different countries. They found that Ainsworth original categories of attachment did replicate across cultures but the percentage of children displaying each attachment style varied across and within cultures. Individualistic cultures had a higher percentage of children with insecure avoidant attachment. Whereas as collectivists cultures had a higher percentage of children with insecure resistant attachment style.