Attachment ALL

1. What is attachment?

2. What are the short term benefits?

3. What are the long term benefits?

1. close two way emotional bond b/w individuals where see each other as essential for their emotional security

2. Survival

3. Emotional relationships, first attachment acts as template for later relationships

How do babies interact w/ their caregiver?

• Imitate/copying behaviours/noises

• Physical touch

• Proximity → When independent enough to move on their own, choose to be close to caregiver

• Showing things to caregiver (eg: toys)

Reciprocity

Explain reciprocity in the context of attachment:

• Develops by about 3 mnths → When behaviour from parent/baby is ‘reciprocated’ (responded to by the other)

• eg: mother smiles, baby smiles back

• eg: baby cries, mother cuddles

Reciprocity

What is a study into reciprocity?

Still face experiment (Tronick):

• Controlled/overt observation of mother + infant (videoed): 1 minute of reciprocity, 2 minutes mother = ‘still faced’

• Infant becomes destressed → tries to communicate: screeches, gestures/points, cries, reaches out

Interactional synchrony

Explain Interactional Synchrony in the context of attachment

Where a caregiver + infant’s speech/behaviour become finely synchronised so that they happen together

Interactional synchrony

Studies into interactional synchrony (IS):

Isabella et al (1989):

• Assessed degree of synchrony in 30 mothers

• Found higher degree of synchrony in more stable/secure attachments

Meltzoff + Moore (1977):

• Videotaped + results identified by independent observers

• 12- 21 day-old babies watched adult experimenter display one of three facial expressions/distinctive gestures

• Observed the beginnings of IS from two weeks old

• Found association b/w expression/gesture adult displayed + that of the baby

Interactional synchrony

Evaluation: limitation of Meltzoff and Moore (1977)

Disagreement of interpretations of results: Meltzoff + Moore believed baby’s IS = intentional, BUT Piaget believes people don't consciously learn IS until at least 1 yr old, so results = unintentional → limitation bcs conflicting interpretations make hard to conclude significance of findings + it’s influence on the understanding of infant-caregiver interactions

Reciprocity and Interactional synchrony

Evaluation: weakness of research into both reciprocity + interactional synchrony

Feldman (2012) claims they give names to patterns, but tell us nothing about LT importance → weakness bcs limits application of theories, so need more research to make confident conclusions

Reciprocity and Interactional synchrony

Evaluation: hard to know what is happening

hard to know what’s happening when observing infants, many studies show same patterns → babies = largely immobile SO many observed actions = small hand movements/expression changes → difficult to be sure meaning based on these observations bcs small, hard to detect differences in actions may have v diff meanings → can't be certain behaviours seen have special meanings, weakness bcs results = inferences (not v scientific)

Reciprocity and Interactional synchrony

Evaluation: social sensitivity

research into caregiver-infant interactions = socially sensitive bcs suggests children may be disadvantaged by particular parenting styles → parents who return to work shortly after birth restrict IS/reciprocity opportunities → suggests caregivers shouldn't return to work so soon = socially sensitive bcs may used to give scientific backing to shaming/discriminating against caregivers who do this

Reciprocity and Interactional synchrony

Evaluation: practical application

understanding reciprocity/interactional synchrony → caregivers can use to improve attachment quality/influence legislation surrounding mat/pat leave → practical use + improve quality of lives

Role of the Father

What did Schaffer & Emerson (1964) find about mother/father attachment figures?

• 70% - mother = 1st sole attachment figure by 7mnths

• 3% - father = 1st sole attachment figure

• 27% - joint 1st sole attachment figure

• BUT fathers later become important attachment figures - 75% formed attachment w/ father by 18mnths (protested when their fathers walked away)

Role of the Father

(AO1 + AO3)

What was Grossman (2002)’s findings?

Longitudinal, attachment studied from infant → teens

• Infant’s attachment quality w/ mothers, not fathers, related to other attachments in adolescence

• suggesting attachment to father = less important than the mother

• BUT father’s quality of play w/ babies = important for quality of adolescent attachments → suggests fathers = distinct role (more about play + stimulation than nurturing)

Role of the Father

(AO1 + AO3)

What are Field (1978)’s findings?

• primary caregiver fathers spent more time smiling/ imitating/holding babies than secondary caregiver fathers (IS)

• SO when fathers = primary caregiver → can adopt emotional role typically associated w/ mothers

Role of the Father

Evaluation: Grossman (2002) = longitudinal study

Longitudinal study = study that lasts for extended amount of time (eg: years) → so can study development of a child (can’t in cross-sectional study (ST)) → Useful bcs can see how children’s early influences impact their later life → gives insight into LT affects of infant-caregiver interactions

Role of the Father

Evaluation: conflicting research

Field (1978) observed 4mnth infant’s face-to-face interactions w/ primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers, and primary caregiver fathers → found primary caregiver fathers spent more time smiling/ imitating/holding babies than secondary caregiver fathers (IS) → SO when fathers = primary caregiver → can adopt emotional role typically associated w/ mothers, contradicting Grossman’s findings + the traditional view of father’s role

Role of the Father

Evaluation: issue w/ research into role of father - heteronormativity/social sensitivity

heteronormativity (when caregiver’s roles = viewed from purely heterosexual POV (1 mother, 1 father)) → limitation bcs studies may be just reflecting gender norms, + not all families = structured like this → influences interpretation of results + be socially sensitive (eg: used to legitimise eg: stop same-sex couples/single parents from adopting bcs suggests families w/o both parents can’t fulfil roles associated w/’missing’ parent) when McCallum + Golombok (2004): no diff in child’s development w/ homosexual parents

Role of the Father

Evaluation: measuring different things

(PC=primary caregiver, SC = secondary caregiver)

inconsistencies in findings bcs diff studies focus on diff things (father as vs secondary caregiver) → so, diff findings: when father = PC, able to attach same way mothers do as PC, when SC, he usually isn't → SO, studies like Grossman et al (2002) may be researching fathers as SC (bcs most common), rather than the ‘role of the father’ (so perpetuating prevailing social norms by labelling it this), explaining inconsistent results

Role of the Father

Evaluation: practical application

For advising families: mother’s often feel pressurised to stay at home + father’s to go back to work for healthy emotional development → not always best economic decision → Field (1978) may reduce parental anxiety + advise their decisions → improve quality of life

Stages of attachment

Who investigated the stages of attachment?

Schaffer and Emerson (1964)

Stages of attachment

Give the stages of attachment, in order, according to Schaffer and Emerson:

• Asocial

• indiscriminate

• specific

• multiple

Stages of attachment

Describe Shaffer and Emerson’s procedure used to study stages of attachment

• 60 babies from Glasgow,- 31 male, 29 female, all working class

• psychologists visited homes once a month for first year and again at 18 months,

• interviewed mums

• asked about separation and stranger anxiety

• considered reaction to them in relation to stranger anxiety

Stages of attachment

Describe Shaffer and Emerson’s findings

• 6-8 months old - 50% of babies showed separation anxiety

• attachments formed to those most sensitive to baby signals (not who spent most time with)

• by 10 months 80% had specific att., 30% showed multiple

• 70% - mother = 1st sole attachment figure by 7mnths

• 3% - father = 1st sole attachment figure

• 27% - joint 1st sole attachment figure

• BUT fathers later become important attachment figures - 75% formed attachment w/ father by 18mnths (protested when their fathers walked away)

Stages of attachment

Describe the asocial stage:

• 0-2mnths

• observable behaviour towards objects and humans is similar

• babies tend to prefer to be with familiar people and are more easily comforted by them

Stages of attachment

describe the indiscriminate attachment stage:

• 2-7mnths

• babies start to show more social behaviour

• prefer familiar people, but also accept cuddles from any person

• low levels of social/stranger anxiety

Stages of attachment

Describe specific attachment stage:

• 7mnths +

• start to show specific attachment to one person

• the person who has the most meaningful interactions with the baby

• stranger anxiety and separation anxiety develop

Stages of attachment

Describe the multiple attachment stage:

• around 8mnths +

• within a month of developing primary attachment, 29% of babies have formed secondary attachments

• w/ others they spend regular time with

Stages of attachment

Evaluation: external validity

strength of Shaffer & Emerson's research + stages of attachment = good validity → observation took place in a natural environment (the babies home) + mother’s reports = their every-day life → so high eco val → strength bcs high mundane realism (extent to which it reflects everyday life) + so results = easier to generalise than lab study

Stages of attachment

Evaluation: population validity

Only babies in Glasgow, from mostly skilled, white, working class families → So, hard to generalise to other infants outside of these categories → SO it could be said Schaffer + Emerson (1964) has poor pop val, limiting it’s application

Stages of attachment

Evaluation: internal validity

Mothers kept a journal of observations → possibility of social desirability bias or human errors such as forgetting to write an entry effecting results → reduces validity of study bcs can’t be certain what the mothers reported was accurate

Stages of attachment

Evaluation: practical application

Theory outlines different behaviour within stages of attachment → could be useful to Nursery/day-care workers as they could adapt their interactions w/ the infants depending on the stage they are in (eg: dealing w/ separation/stranger anxiety during specific attch. stage)→ so useful application to everyday life, improve quality of life for children

Animal studies into attachment

What is the difference b/w attachment in babies + animals?

Animals = more independent, eg: many can walk v soon after being born, but humans can't for about a year → need a carer for longer → larger attachment

Animal studies into attachment

Key animal studies into attachment:

• Lorenz (1952)

• Harlow (1958)

Animal studies into attachment

Lorenz (1952) procedure:

• Separated batch of fertilised eggs into experimental group + control

• Experimental group saw Lorenz first after hatched, control group saw mother first

• Observed results

Animal studies into attachment

Lorenz (1952) findings:

• Experimental: Gosling would follow him

• Control: followed mother

• Lorenz then released them all together → they separated to their 'mothers' (Lorenz or actual mother)

• Critical period = 32 hours → if missed this, unlikely to imprint

• Most likely to imprint: 13-16 hours

Animal studies into attachment

Lorenz (1952) conclusions:

• “imprinting” = natural instinct + would cause the goslings to imprint on first large moving object they saw bcs they needed food + protection

• Imprinting bcs of natural selection: if geese didn’t learn this behaviour through evolution, they would die out leaving geese that did

• Critical periods: imprinting more easy within this/harder outside of this

Animal studies into attachment

Harlow (1958) procedure:

• 8 rhesus monkeys, caged from infancy w/ wire mesh food dispensing + cloth-covered surrogate mothers

• Measured time monkeys spent w/ each surrogate mother + time cried for biological mother

Animal studies into attachment

Harlow (1958) findings:

• Showed attachment behaviours to cloth, NOT food-dispensing, surrogate mother when scared

• Willing to explore room full of toys when cloth mother = present BUT displayed phobic responses when w/ only food-dispensing surrogate

• Infant monkeys that were reared in non-isolated environment developed into healthy adults

• Monkeys in isolation w/ the surrogate mothers displayed dysfunctional adult behaviour:

  • timid

  • unpredictable to other monkeys

  • difficulty mating

  • females = inadequate mothers

Animal studies into attachment

Harlow (1958) conclusions:

comfort = more important than feeding in forming attachments

Animal studies into attachment

Evaluation: Disadvantages of using animals to study attachment (inference)

Lack of ability to communicate w/ an animal about emotions, so cannot understand reasons for/meaning of behaviour → inference is needed → less scientific → limitation of animal studies

Animal studies into attachment

Evaluation: strength of using animal studies to research attachment

Fewer ethical guidelines → can keep them in highly controlled environment for months at a time, can control their food, + deprive them things (mother, attention/interaction, food, comfort) much more than w/ humans, + develop quicker, so monitoring takes less time → strength bcs can research/gain insight into certain elements of attachment in controlled/scientific manner, that human ethical guidelines can’t allow → increases understanding of attachment

Animal studies into attachment

Evaluation: extrapolation issues

Extrapolation = ability to apply findings from animal studies to humans → Humans take longer to form an attachment as they are immobile (8-9 months) vs animals attach straight away so can have food and protection + unlikely observations of goslings following a researcher/monkey’s relationships w/ surrogate ‘mothers’ reflect emo complexity of interaction that characterises human attachments→ differences limits extrapolation + ability to generalise to humans

Animal studies into attachment

Evaluation: Lorenz (1952) - Validity

Later researchers have questioned Lorenz's conclusions → Guiton found chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults, BUT eventually learned to prefer actual chickens as mates → suggests impact of imprinting on mating behaviour = not as permanent as Lorenz believed

Animal studies into attachment

Evaluation: Harlow (1958) practical application

useful in understanding risk in care + attachment in non-wild animals → now understand importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos → usefulness increases value of research + improves quality of life for the monkeys

Animal studies into attachment

Evaluation: Harlow (1958) - human like suffering

Rhesus monkeys = similar enough to generalise findings so their suffering was human-like → Harlow himself aware of suffering caused, so questions the morals of this research BUT could argue research = important enough to justify the procedures

Learning theory of attachment

What are the types of conditioning the learning theory suggests are explanations of attachment?

• Classical conditioning theory

• operant conditioning theory

Learning theory of attachment

Explain the process of attachment through classical conditioning:

1. Baby only feels comforted (UCR) by food (UCS)

2. BUT every time baby is fed, mother (NS) is there too

3. Begin to associate mother w/ pleasure of being fed

4. Until mother (CS) stimulates feeling of pleasure (CR) w/o presence of food

5. SO baby feels happier when mother = nearby → start of attachment

Learning theory of attachment

What is the operant conditioning explanation called?

Dollard and Miller (1950) → drive reduction theory

Learning theory of attachment

Explain attachment for the infant in terms of operant conditioning

• Discomfort → drive (something that motivates behaviour) to reduce discomfort

• Hungry infant → drive to reduce hunger (negative reinforcement)

• Infant cries to signal hunger/discomfort

• Attachment occurs bcs child seeks out person who supplies reward/reinforcement (food/reduction of hunger) SO operantly conditioned to attach to mother

• Hunger = primary drive (bcs innate + natural)

• SO attachment = secondary drive

Learning theory of attachment

What caregiver response would crying receive and what type of reinforcement is this?

Caregiver response of feeding/comforting = positive reinforcement to cry when hungry/discomforted

Learning theory of attachment

What caregiver response would hunger receive and what type of reinforcement is this?

Caregiver response of feeding = negative reinforcement (taking away feeling of hunger)

Learning theory of attachment

How would the drive reduction theory explain attachment for the caregiver?

Baby crying causes discomfort for caregiver → feeding baby removes crying (and so discomfort), SO negatively reinforced to want to remove infant’s discomfort + positively reinforced bcs rewarded by baby’s comfort → attachment

Learning theory of attachment

Evaluation: contradicting animal evidence

Harlow (1958) found that comfort was more important in forming attachment than food → suggests that cupboard love theory = oversimplistic, places too much importance on the role of feeding, + not enough emphasis on role of comfort in attachment

Learning theory of attachment

Evaluation: contradicting human evidence

Schaffer + Emerson (1964) → Specific attachments formed w/ person w/ best quality interaction w/ baby, not who spent most time/fed → Asocial + indiscriminate stage occur before baby forms specific attachment (despite being fed) → suggests learning theory of attachment = uncomprehensive bcs shouldn’t have found this if it was the only/correct explanation

Learning theory of attachment

Evaluation: Alternative explanation

Bowlby’s monotropic theory → monotropy = the tendency to form a single attachment to person who is most important to them → who shows most sensitivity (quality) → Law of continuity suggests if a child's care is constant then the quality of attachment is superior → suggests attachment = due to sensitivity shown to baby (supported by Schaffer + Emerson (1964)) not food

Learning theory of attachment

Evaluation: reductionist

environmentally reductionist theory → tries to explain all attachment behaviour through contact w/ just the environment → too simplistic explanation to explain attachment, ignores cognitive elements

Strange situation

Who conducted the strange situation, what type of study/who were the Ps?

Ainsworth (1978):

• Controlled, lab, observation → 2 way mirror (psychologists observe infant's behaviour) + recorded

• 56 white, MC, American, 18-21 months

Strange situation

Ainsworth (1978) procedure:

Took ~21 mins

1. Child is encouraged to explore by caregiver → child plays, caregiver watches

2. Stranger enters + talks to parent

3. Caregiver leaves, infant plays, stranger offers comfort if needed

4. Caregiver returns, greets infant + offers comfort if needed, stranger leaves

5. Caregiver leaves child alone → stranger returns + tries to comfort

6. Caregiver returns, greets child, + offers comfort if needed

Strange situation

What categories were used to judge attachment quality?

• Contact seeking behaviour– proximity to caregiver

• Exploration + secure base behaviour:

  • Able to explore if have secure base

  • Not have secure base

  • Won’t leave secure base

• Separation anxiety

• Reunion behaviour w/ caregiver

Strange situation

How many attachment types did Ainsworth find?

1. Type A) Insecure Avoidant (20%)

2. Type B) Secure (70%)

3. Type C) Insecure Resistant (10%)

Strange situation

What is a brief sentence about each type’s behaviour?

• IA - mother + stranger can comfort equally well

• S - mother is secure base

• IR - cries more and explores less than other types

Strange situation

How did each type react to their caregiver leaving?

• IA - no sign of distress

• S - distressed

• IR - intense distressed

Strange situation

How did each type react to their caregiver returning?

• IA - Indifferent (avoids contact)

• S - secure (seeks contact)

• IR - resists contact but seeks close proximity

Strange situation

How did each type react to the stranger?

• IA - Indifferent + plays normally

• S - avoidant of strangers when alone, but friendly w/ mother present

• IR - avoids stranger + is fearful

Strange situation

What was each type’s reunion behaviour?

Slight repeat

• IA - shows little interest when the mother returns

• S - Positive and happy when the mother returns

• IR - approaches the mother, but resists contact - may even push her away

Strange situation

Explanation of behaviour of each type in the experiment:

• IA - IWM of themselves as unacceptable and unworthy

• S - positive IWM

• IR - negative self-image + exaggerate their emotional responses to gain attention

Strange situation

What are the main characteristics of secure attachment types in infants?

• upset when mother leaves

• happy when mother returns → seeks contact

• avoid stranger when alone, but friendly when mother is present

• uses mother as a safe base to explore environment

Strange situation

When do secure types occur?

mother meets emotional needs of infant → attentive + sensitive

Strange situation

What are the main characteristics of insecure avoidant attachment types in infants?

• unconcerned by mother’s absence

• little interest when reunited w/ mother

• strongly avoidant of mother + stranger, showing no motivation to interact w/ either

Strange situation

When do insecure avoidant types occur?

mother ignores emotional needs of infant → inattentive + insensitive

Strange situation

What are the main characteristics of insecure resistant attachment types in infants?

• clingy to mother in new situation + not willing to explore – (suggesting don’t have trust in her)

• extremely distressed when mother leaves

• Stranger can’t comfort, won’t interact w/ them (treat stranger + mother very differently

• when mother returns = pleased to see her, seek proximity (but not being picked up), can’t be comforted → may show signs of anger to her

Strange situation

When do insecure resistant types occur?

Mother sometimes meets emotional needs of infant, sometimes ignores them → attentive + insensitive

Strange situation

Evaluation: Ainsworth (1978) = incomplete

Main + Solomon (1986) M-A of >200 strange situation videos → proposed 'insecure-disorganised' (inconsistent patterns of social behaviour → eg: show v strong attachment behaviour, suddenly followed by avoidance/looking fearful towards caregiver) → Van Ijzendoorn et al (1999) M-A of >80 studies in US: 62% S, 15% IA, 9% IR,15% insecure-disorganised → suggests that Ainsworth (1978) is an incomplete definition of types of attachment

Strange situation

Evaluation: methodological strengths Ainsworth (1978)

Filmed → found almost perfect inter-rater reliability for exploratory behaviour - 0.94 → strength bcs high reliability suggests the results are due to IV not chance → also had standardised, clear procedure → can be repeated to increase reliability

Strange situation

Evaluation: methodological weaknesses of Ainsworth (1978)

Is it measuring attachment type of child, or quality of ONE particular relationship? → Main + Weston (1981) found children behaved diff depending on which parent they were w/ → suggests classification of attachment type may not be valid bcs measures one relationship, NOT personal characteristics of individual → BUT according to Bowlby's MT, attachment type = largely related to one special relationship

Strange situation

Evaluation: practical applications

Can be developed to tackle situations where disordered patterns of attachment develop b/w infant and caregiver → eg: Cooper et al (2005) teaches caregivers to better understand infants' signals of distress + increase understanding of child’s emotions → found decrease in numbers of caregivers classified as disordered (60% → 15%) + increase infants classed as secure (32% → 40%) → improve children's lives

Strange situation

Evaluation: Temporal validity

Ainsworth (1978) = 40 yrs ago → parenting styles changed a lot → Simonelli et al (2014): strange situation, modern Italian infants = sig. lower % of S, + higher IA, and → argue this change = bcs healthy coping mechanisms for modern world where mothers = more frequently away bcs work, so w/ child minders → Categorisations in Ainsworth lack temp val → impose social norms of time

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What’s Culture bias?

a bias that assumes and exaggerates cultural similarities/assumes they are profoundly different

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What’s Ethnocentrism/Ethnocentric?

a cultural bias that implies superiority of one's own culture (usually Western) → western = normal

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What’s Imposed etic?

studying one culture and then applying research to all cultures as if the behaviour is the same

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Who studies cultural variations in attachment types?

What was the method, and general patterns?

Van Ijzendoorn (1988):

• Large scale M-A of 2000 infants in 32 strange situation studies from 8 countries

• General patterns:

  • Overall results = Secure (65%), Avoidant (21%), Resistant (14%)

  • Secure = most common in all countries

  • IR = mostly least common (except Israel + Japan)

  • IA = more common in individual W cultures, IR = more common in collectivist, non-W cultures

  • 6/8 country’s findings = proportionally consistent w/ Ainsworth

  • More variation WITHIN countries than B/W (1.5x more)

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the USA’s results?

Secure: 65%

Avoidant: 21%

Resistant: 24%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the UK’s results?

Secure: 75%

Avoidant: 22%

Resistant: 3%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the Holland’s results?

Secure: 67%

Avoidant: 26%

Resistant: 7%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the Germany’s results?

Secure: 57%

Avoidant: 35%

Resistant: 8%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the Japan’s results?

Secure: 68%

Avoidant: 5%

Resistant: 27%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the China’s results?

Secure: 50%

Avoidant: 25%

Resistant: 25%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the Israel’s results?

Secure: 64%

Avoidant: 7%

Resistant: 29%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What was the Sweden’s results?

Secure: 74%

Avoidant: 22%

Resistant: 4%

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What conclusions can we make from Van Ijzendoor (1988)?

• S = most common → evidence for universal preferred attachment style → potentially bio basis

• Variations in parenting may explain differences:

  • G fams encourage independent/non-clingy behaviour → infants = little distress in studies → more classed as IA

  • Jap: PC + babies rarely separated → extreme ‘resistance’ reactions to separation in studies

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What conclusions can we draw about research intro cultural variation on attachment?

• Research often follows the Strange Situation model, but this was designed in America about white middle class families

• Indigenous psychology would be a better approach, but then the results couldn't be directly comparable

• In Van Ijzendoorn's meta-analysis, 18/32 of the studies were conducted in America - Ethnocentrism + could change the average, making it look like the study may be closer to the original than it actually is - culture bias

• The sample was also still WIERD

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

What is WIERD?

Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Evaluation: Van Ijzendoorn (1988) strength

internal validity → standardised methodology → use of strange situation procedure → cross-cultural comparison → + high sample (2000 babies → anomalies have less impact on overall findings) → increases internal validity

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Evaluation: not globally representative

Africa, South America, E. European socialist countries = not represented → Van Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg recognised more data from non-WIERD countries needed to for true understanding cultural variations in attachment

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Evaluation: Overall findings are misleading

disproportionately high number of studies from USA (18/32), → may have distorted overall findings → many countries = represented by 1 or 2 studies → eg: Israel: 1 study = urban, 1 = agricultural town → agricultural = FAR higher IR → more variation within than b/w countries → means apparent consistency b/w cultures might not genuinely reflect how much attachment types vary culturally + maybe rural vs urban is more important distinction

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Evaluation: ethnocentric

Applying Strange Situation procedures + behavioural categories = ethnocentric → judges + categorises infant behaviour according to categories developed from observations of white, MC, American babies → means non-American infant behaviour = judged by American standard → eg: infant exploring playroom by themselves = avoidant by American standards BUT valued as reflecting independence in Germany

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Evaluation: Takahashi

Takahashi (1990) → Strange Situation w/ 60 MC Japanese infants/mothers → distinct cultural differences to Ainsworth (1978) → IA = 0%, IR = 32%, S = 68%, 90% of infant-alone steps= stopped bcs excessive infant anxiety + this situation = quite unnatural broke cultural norms → suggests that attachment types = NOT universal + cultural norms influence their expression → strange situation = culturally bound

Cultural Variations in Attachment Type

Evaluation: Temporal validity

Van Ijzendoorn (1988) = almost 40 yrs ago → parenting styles changed a lot → Simonelli et al (2014): strange situation, modern Italian infants = sig. lower % of S, + higher IA, and → argue this change = bcs healthy coping mechanisms for modern world where mothers = more frequently away bcs work, so w/ child minders → Categorisations in Ainsworth + Van Ijzendoorn lack temp val → impose social norms of time

Bowlby's monotropic theory

What is the MT based on?

evolution

Bowlby's monotropic theory

List what MT believes in:

• innate

• monotropy

• social releasers

• internal working model

• Critical period + sensitive period