Psychology - Attachment PMT

Paper 1

Attachment

a strong reciprocal emotional bond between an infant and a primary care giver

reciporcal

• It means responding to each other’s signals, e.g. a parent smiles and the baby smiles back.

• Brazleton et al. showed that even babies as young as 2 weeks old try to copy their caregiver.

• Feldman found that caregivers respond to a baby’s signals about two-thirds of the time.

Why it matters:

• Reciprocity helps babies learn to communicate.

• It also helps parents understand and meet their child’s needs more quickly and effectively.

interactional synchrony

Interactional synchrony is when an infant and their primary caregiver are in sync during interactions.

Research shows:

• Condon and Sander (1974) found that babies can match their body movements to the rhythm of an adult's voice.

• Brazleton et al. showed that very young infants can imitate facial expressions and gestures.

Synchronised interactions are linked to better communication skills as the child grows older.

evaluation of interactional synchrony and reciprocity 

Strengths of research methods:

• Many attachment studies used controlled observations.

• For example, Brazleton et al recorded interactions from multiple angles.

• This increases accuracy and detail.

• It also allows inter-rater reliability, as different researchers can rewatch and compare their interpretations.

Limitations:

• With very young infants (e.g. 2 weeks old), it's unclear whether their actions are intentional or meaningful, since they have limited motor control.

• Bremner pointed out the difference between behavioural response and behavioural understanding: even if babies appear to be syncing or responding, it doesn’t prove they understand reciprocity or synchrony.

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study

Aim:
To identify the stages of attachment and find patterns in how attachments develop between infants and parents.

Participants:

• 60 babies from Glasgow

• All from the same working-class estate

Procedure:

• Researchers observed interactions between infants and their carers.

• They interviewed the carers.

• Mothers kept diaries recording the infants’ behaviour using three measures:

  • Separation anxiety: distress when the carer leaves and need for comfort when they return

  • Stranger anxiety: distress when approached by an unfamiliar person

  • Social referencing: how often the infant checks the carer’s reaction to new situations

Study design:

• Longitudinal (over time), lasting 18 months

• Researchers visited each baby monthly, plus one final visit at the end of the study.

findings and conclusions of Schaffer and Emersons study

• Sensitive responsiveness (parents responding to the baby’s signals) was more important than time spent with the baby.

• Infants formed stronger attachments with carers who were responsive and interactive, even if they spent less time with them.

• Infants with unresponsive carers had very weak attachments.

• Attachments developed mainly through communication and play, not just feeding or cleaning.

Stages of attachment (Schaffer & Emerson):

1. Asocial stage (0–6 weeks): Infant responds similarly to people and objects but may prefer faces/eyes.

2. Indiscriminate attachments (6 weeks–6 months): Infant enjoys human company, can be comforted by anyone, but starts to distinguish people.

3. Specific attachment (7 months+): Infant prefers one primary carer, shows separation and stranger anxiety, and seeks security and comfort from them.

4. Multiple attachments (10–11 months+): Infant forms attachments with several people (fathers, siblings, extended family, friends), showing varying strengths of attachment.

• Many infants reached this stage by around 10 months.

evaluation of Schaffer and Emersons study

Limitations of Schaffer & Emerson’s study:

1. Population validity:

   • Sample: 60 infants, all from Glasgow, mostly working-class.

   • Small, unrepresentative sample → cannot generalise findings to all infants.

   • Temporal validity: Parenting practices have changed since the 1950s (e.g., influence of Bowlby), so the stages may not apply today.

2. Internal validity:

   • Data relied on parent diaries (self-report).

   • Accuracy may be low: parents were busy, may omit details, be influenced by social desirability, or demand characteristics.

   • This reduces confidence in the conclusions.

3. Studying the asocial stage:

   • Infants as young as 6 weeks have limited motor skills.

   • Behaviours like separation anxiety may not be deliberate.

   • Bremner: distinction between behavioural response and understanding—apparent bonds may not reflect real understanding.

the role of the father

Father’s role in attachment:

• Schaffer & Emerson: By 18 months, 75% of infants formed a secondary attachment with their father; 29% did so within a month of their primary attachment (measured by separation anxiety).

• Fathers are important attachment figures but are less likely to be the first attachment.

Primary attachment can vary:

• Tiffany Field: Observed that primary caregivers, whether mother or father, were more attentive, held, and smiled at infants more.

• This shows that the primary attachment figure doesn’t have to be the mother—fathers can also fulfil this role.

evaluation of the father figure

• Unclear influence: Studies (e.g., MacCallum & Golombok) show children in single-parent or homosexual families develop normally, suggesting fathers are not essential for attachment.

• Social and biological factors: Gender of the primary caregiver may be shaped by societal expectations (women as caring) and biology (women’s higher oestrogen, lower testosterone).

• Social sensitivity of research: Findings can lead to blame on parents for developmental issues, potentially pressuring single parents to adjust work or caregiving roles to support attachment.

animal studies (Lorenz)

Lorenz and imprinting:

• Imprinting: Animals attach to the first moving object/person they see after birth.

• Lorenz’s study: Half of a clutch of goose eggs imprinted on Lorenz instead of their mother.

• Critical period: Imprinting must occur within a critical period (usually the first 30 months in humans); after this, attachment may fail or be irreversible.

Sexual imprinting:

• Animals may later display sexual behaviours toward the first object/animal they saw after birth.

• Example: A peacock raised among turtles only attempted to mate with turtles as an adult.

evaluation of Lorenz animal study

• Low generalisability: Mammals differ from birds; they can form attachments throughout life and with greater emotional intensity, so Lorenz’s findings have low ecological validity.

• Sexual imprinting not permanent: Guiton et al showed chickens that initially imprinted on gloves later preferred mating with other chickens, highlighting that learning and experience can override early imprinting.

animal studies (Harlow)

• Tested contact comfort using wire and cloth “mothers”.

• Findings: When scared, monkeys preferred the cloth mother regardless of which one provided milk.

• Conclusion: Comfort and tactile contact are more important than food in forming attachments.

• Monkeys, even those with access to the cloth mother, showed developmental problems:

  • Poor mating skills

  • Aggression toward their own offspring

  • Social withdrawal

• Highlights the importance of a secure attachment to a primary caregiver during the critical period (first ~30 months).

evaluation of Harlows research

Strengths:

• Practical value: Insights apply to zoos and animal shelters, showing the importance of attachment figures, contact comfort, and stimulation for healthy development.

• Reliability and validity: Ethical issues don’t reduce the quality of the findings.

Limitations:

• Ethical issues: Monkeys experienced long-term psychological harm (e.g., difficulties mating and forming attachments).

• Cost-benefit consideration: Researchers must weigh the ethical costs against the knowledge gained about attachment.

the learning theory of attachment

• Based on empiricism: children are born as blank slates; all behaviours are learned through experience.

• Attachments develop via classical and operant conditioning.

• “Cupboard love” theory:

  • Babies form attachments to those who provide food.

  • Hunger is a primary drive; attachment forms as the caregiver reduces this drive, creating an association between caregiver and comfort.

classical conditioning explanation (like Pavlov’s dog)

• Mother (neutral stimulus) becomes associated with pleasure from feeding (unconditioned response).

• Through repeated feeding, the baby links the mother to comfort and pleasure.

• The mother becomes a conditioned stimulus, making the baby feel happy when she is near.

• This process initiates the formation of attachment.

operant conditioning explanation (like Skinners rats)

• Baby performs a behaviour (e.g., crying) → triggers a response from the mother (comfort or food).

• Behaviour is reinforced: the child learns that the mother provides rewards.

• Food acts as the primary reinforcer.

• Mother becomes a secondary reinforcer, associated with the reward.

• Reinforcement strengthens the attachment.

evaluation of the learning theory of attachment

• Animal evidence: Harlow showed contact comfort mattered more than food; monkeys attached to the cloth mother regardless of who fed them → challenges the idea of food as an unconditioned stimulus.

• Human evidence: Brazleton et al highlighted the importance of interactional synchrony and reciprocity; infants attach to the most attentive caregiver, not necessarily the one who feeds them.

• Limitation: Learning theory ignores universal features of attachment like synchrony and reciprocity, making it a limited explanation of attachment formation.

Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment

evolutionay theory of attachment, it states that attachments are innate, i.e. you are born with it. 

acronym ASCMI (ask me)

A = Adaptive, S = Social releasers, C = Critical period, M =Monotropy, I = Internal working model

Adaptive

attachments are an advantage, or beneficial to survival as it ensures a child is kept safe, warm and fed

Social releasers

e.g. a cute face on a baby. These unlock the innate tendency for adults to care for a child becuase they activate the mammalian attachment system

Critical period

This is the time in which an attachment can form i.e. up to 2.5-3 years old. Bowlby suggested that if an attachment is not formed in this time, it never will. If an attachment does not form, you will be socially, emotionally, intellectually and physically stunted. Bowlby demonstrated with his 44 thieves study, where maternal deprivation was associated with affectionless psychopathy, and intellectual disability.

Monotropy

means ‘one carer’. Bowlby suggested that you can only form one special intense attachment (typically the mother). This attachment is unique, stronger and different to others. Maternal deprivation, which is characterised by a lack of a mother figure during the critical period for attachment formation, results in emotional and intellectual developmental deficits.

Internal working model

our perception of the attachment we have with our primary attachment figure. Therefore, this explains similarities in attachment patterns across families. Those who have a dysfunctional internal working model will seek out dysfunctional relationships and behave dysfunctionally within them.

evaluation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment

Supporting evidence:

• Internal working models: Bailey et al observed 99 mothers and their children via the Strange Situation; insecure attachments in children matched insecure attachments in the mothers’ own childhoods.

• Suggests early attachments shape internal working models, influencing children’s future parenting.

Limitations / criticisms:

• Socially sensitive: Monotropy often implies the mother must be the primary attachment, pressuring working mothers and blaming them for attachment issues.

• Not universal:

  • Schaffer & Emerson found some children form multiple attachments from the start.

  • van Ijzendoorn & Kronenberg found monotropy is rare in collectivist cultures.

• Therefore, monotropy is not a universal feature and is a limited explanation of attachment.

Ainsworths ‘Strange Situation’

• Designed to assess the quality of attachment between a child and caregiver.

• Can identify secure and insecure attachment types.

• Method: controlled observation through a two-way mirror.

the seven stages of Strange Situation

• Caregiver and child alone: Caregiver sits, child free to explore; caregiver interacts only if child seeks attention.

• Stranger enters: Talks to caregiver, then approaches child with a toy.

• Caregiver leaves: Child left with stranger; stranger observes, engages, or comforts if distressed.

• Caregiver returns: Stranger leaves.

• Caregiver leaves again: Child briefly alone.

• Stranger returns: Observes, engages, or comforts as before.

• Caregiver returns: Stranger leaves again.

three types of attachment

secure, insecure resistant and insecure avoidant

secure

• Infant shows some separation anxiety when caregiver leaves.

• Easily soothed upon caregiver’s return.

• Can play independently but uses caregiver as a safe base to explore.

• Accounts for about 65% of children.

insecure resistant

• Infant becomes very distressed when caregiver leaves and tries to follow them.

• On caregiver’s return, infant alternates between seeking and rejecting comfort.

• Shows less willingness to explore new environments.

• Accounts for about 3% of children (least common type).

insecure avoidant

• Infant shows no separation anxiety when the caregiver leaves.

• Shows no stranger anxiety when a stranger enters.

• May display anger or frustration toward the caregiver and avoid social interaction.

• Can explore and play independently regardless of who is present.

• Accounts for about 20% of children.

evaluation of the Strange Situation

• Internal validity:

  • Only measured attachment to one caregiver (usually the mother).

  • Children may be securely attached to another figure (father, sibling, relative).

  • Assumes child is closest to mother → may misclassify attachment type.

• Ethical issues:

  • Around 20% of children cried desperately, indicating potential psychological harm.

  • Raises concerns about long-term emotional damage.

  • Cost-benefit analysis needed: knowledge gained vs. ethical cost.

• Population validity / cultural bias:

  • Mostly conducted in Western countries (mainly USA).

  • Results may not generalise to other cultures, especially collectivist societies.

• Ecological validity:

  • Lab setting → high control, but lacks mundane realism.

  • Not fully representative of real-life attachment behaviours.

• Reliability:

  • High control makes it easily replicable, increasing confidence in findings and attachment classifications.

cultural variations in attachment - Van Izjendoorn

• Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988):

  • Meta-analysis of 32 studies across 8 countries.

  • Investigated cross-cultural patterns of attachment.

• Simonella et al (Italy):

  • Only 50% of children were securely attached, lower than expected.

  • Possible explanation: more mothers working, using professional childcare, reducing consistent caregiver contact and secure attachment formation.

• Jin et al (Korea, 2012):

  • Among 87 infants, most insecure attachments were insecure-resistant, not avoidant.

  • Pattern similar to Japan, suggesting child-rearing practices influence attachment types.

evaluation of cross cultural attachment research

Limitations:

• Ecological validity:

  • Cultural variation exists within countries, e.g., rural vs. urban areas (Sagi & van Ijzendoorn).

  • van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg may have measured country differences, not true cultural differences.

• Culture-bound method:

  • Strange Situation was based on American children → may not generalise to collectivist cultures.

  • Example of imposed etic: Ainsworth assumed her attachment stages applied universally, which is questionable.

Strengths:

• Reliability: Large sample (1990 children) increases replicability and confidence that results are not due to chance.

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

• Attachment is essential for healthy psychological and emotional development.

• Negative consequences of maternal deprivation:

  • Difficulty forming future attachments (internal working model)

  • Affectionless psychopathy (lack of remorse)

  • Delinquency in adolescence

  • Cognitive development problems

• Common situations causing deprivation: day care, prolonged hospital stays, institutional care, or separation from absent/neglectful parents.

  • Effects can be temporary or permanent but mild.

• Privation: child fails to form any attachment, often due to institutional care, and is considered more harmful than deprivation.

44 thieves

• Sample: 44 juvenile thieves.

• Findings:

  • 14 showed affectionless psychopathy.

  • Of these 14, 12 had experienced maternal deprivation during the critical period (first 30 months).

  • Only 5 of the remaining 30 thieves had affectionless psychopathy.

• Conclusion: Early maternal deprivation was linked to affectionless psychopathy and, consequently, criminal behaviour.

evaluation of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation research

Contradictory evidence:

• Lewis et al: Interviews with 500 juveniles found no link between maternal deprivation and later relationship difficulties → questions Bowlby’s causal claims.

Methodological limitations:

• Researcher bias: Bowlby knew his hypothesis and may have used leading questions.

• Confounding variables: War-orphans may have suffered from poor care or PTSD, not just maternal deprivation.

Critical period issues:

• Koluchova’s twin case: Twins deprived of maternal care for 7 years recovered fully with appropriate fostering.

• Suggests effects of maternal deprivation are not always irreversible, challenging the strict critical period idea.

effects of institutionalisation

Children in institutional care are very likely to experience privation. A number of such studies into children in care all show that young children admitted to institutional care usually respond with acute distress. An example of a study is by Hodges and Tizard.

Hodges and Tizard (1989)

Aim:

• To observe the effects of institutionalisation on attachment formation and quality.

Procedure:

• 65 British children followed from infancy to adolescence.

• Placed in an institution before 4 months old, before attachments formed.

• Policy prevented caretakers from forming attachments.

• Early findings: 70% of children unable to care deeply for anyone, indicating early emotional privation.

Findings:

• Children assessed up to age 16.

• Adopted children formed attachments similar to other ex-institutional children; restored children struggled to attach to mothers.

• Ex-institutional children had peer relationship difficulties: fewer special friends, quarrelsome, more bullying, sought adult attention (disinhibited attachment).

Conclusion:

• Early privation negatively affected the ability to form relationships, even with later emotional care.

• Supports Bowlby’s idea that failure to form attachments during the sensitive period can have irreversible effects on emotional development.

• Children cope better at home with supportive adults, but peer relationships remain impaired.

Rutter’s Romanian orphan study

Aim:

• Investigate the impact of institutionalisation on psychological, emotional, and physical development.

Procedure:

• 165 Romanian orphans assessed at ages 4, 6, and 11.

• Compared to 50 British adoptees as a control group.

Findings:

• Most orphans were malnourished.

• IQ depended on age at adoption:

  • Adopted before 6 months → 25 IQ points higher than those adopted after 2 years.

• Disinhibited attachment:

  • Seen in children adopted after 6 months.

  • Characterised by attention-seeking and indiscriminate affection due to multiple caregivers during the critical period.

  • Rare in children adopted before 6 months.

Conclusion:

• Early adoption (before 6 months) enables full recovery in emotional and intellectual development.

• Supported by Bucharest Early Intervention Project (Zeanah et al., 2005):

  • 65% of institutionalised orphans had disorganised attachments, vs. 20% in the control group.

evaluation of Rutter’s study

Strengths:

• Studied institutionalisation in isolation, avoiding confounding variables like PTSD or war trauma.

• Increases reliability and confidence in conclusions about the effects of institutionalisation and recovery rates.

Limitations:

• Short-term focus: Recovery was assessed over limited time; long-term outcomes remain uncertain.

• Ecological validity: Romanian orphanages were exceptionally poor (lack of stimulation, abuse), so findings may not generalise to typical institutional settings.

long term effects of disrupted attachments

• Romanian orphans adopted after 6 months often showed disinhibited attachment and peer problems.

• Suggests long-term consequences may be mitigated if children later form attachments.

• Failure to form attachments can lead to severe long-term effects.

attachment disorder

• Recognised in the DSM; occurs when early attachment disruptions affect social and emotional development.

• Characteristics:

  • No preferred attachment figure

  • Difficulty interacting/relating to others before age 5

  • Severe neglect or frequent caregiver changes

Types of attachment disorder:

• Reactive/inhibited: shy, withdrawn, struggles in social situations

• Disinhibited: over-friendly, attention-seeking

Bowlby - continuity and internal working models

• Continuity: Early attachment experiences influence later relationships (friendships, romantic, family).

• Internal Working Model (IWM): Mental template formed from first main attachments; guides expectations and behaviour in relationships.

• Personality & Parenting:

  • Early attachments shape personality and future parenting style.

  • Children often raised similarly to how they were, as shown by Bailey et al. (2007) → attachment style can pass through generations.

• Impact on adult relationships:

  • IWM affects expectations and attitudes toward others, influencing romantic relationship quality.

  • Example: Insecure-resistant individuals may have trust issues and struggle with commitment.

• Attachment disorder link: Abuse or neglect in childhood can lead to:

  • Resisting or rejecting intimacy

  • Lack of responsiveness or overfamiliarity in adult relationships

evaluation of Bowlby’s continuity and internal working model

Supporting Evidence:

• Bailey et al. (2007): Most women had the same attachment classification to their babies as to their own mothers → supports continuity.

• Hazan & Shaver: Securely attached children had happier, longer-lasting relationships, insecurely attached had more divorces → childhood attachment affects adult attitudes toward relationships.

• Fraley: Meta-analysis found correlations up to 0.50 between early attachment and later relationships → some attachment types are more stable than others.

• Simpson et al.: Longitudinal study across infancy to adulthood → securely attached children were more expressive and emotionally attached in adult romantic relationships.

Criticisms:

• Deterministic/reductionist: Suggests insecure attachment inevitably leads to poor adult relationships and parenting, ignoring life experiences and personal choice.

• Alternative explanations:

  • Temperament hypothesis (Kagan): Adult relationship quality may be determined by innate personality factors, not attachment style.

• Variability in attachment stability: Some insecurely attached children develop happy, fulfilling relationships, showing that attachment is not the sole determinant.