Evaluations of general knowledge

positive evaluation of research on caregiver-infant interactions

• normally filmed in a lab, other activity that could distract the baby is controlled, observations can be analysed later- unlikely to miss key behaviours, more than one observer can record data from the clips and establish inter-rater reliability

• babies don’t know they are being observed so behaviour won’t change in response to observation- high validity and reliability

• has practical applications in parenting skills training, Crotwell et al. found 10 min parent-child interaction therapy improved interactional synchrony in 20 low income mothers and pre-school children

• evidence from other lines of research that early interactions are important e.g. Isabella et al. found achievement of interactional synchrony predicted the development of good quality attachment

negative evaluation of research on caregiver-infant interactions

• hard to interpret a baby’s behaviour, young babies lack coordination, much of their bodies are immobile, the movements being observed are just small hand movements or subtle changes in expression, hard to know if a baby is smiling or passing wind, hard to determine the baby’s perspective on what is happening, movements could be random or triggered by the caregiver, cannot be certain that behaviour seen have a special meaning

• observing a behaviour doesn’t tell us the developmental importance of it, Feldman says ideas like synchrony simply give names to patterns of observable caregiver and baby behaviour, can be reliably observed but do not tell us the purpose of these behaviours, cannot be certain from observation research alone that reciprocity and synchrony are important for a child’s development

• research into caregiver-infant interactions is socially sensitive, can be used to argue a mother returning to work too soon after giving birth is risking damaging the babies’ development

positive evaluation of Schaffer’s stages of attachment

• research has good external validity: most observations except stranger anxiety were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to researchers, if researchers were present they might have distracted the baby or made them feel more anxious, means it’s highly likely participants behaved naturally while being observed

• real-world application: practical application in day care, in asocial and indiscriminate stages day care will likely be straight forward as babies can be comforted by any skilled adult, day care especially starting day care during specific attachment stage may be problematic, therefore parents can use the stages to plan their use of day care, can also be used for parenting advice

• based on a large scale study with good design features

negative evaluation of Schaffer’s stages of attachment

• issues with asking mothers to be the observers, unlikely to be objective observers, might be biased in what they noticed or remembered e.g. signs of anxiety, even if babies behaved naturally behaviour may not have been accurately recorded

• poor evidence for asocial stage: young babies are fairly immobile with poor coordination , babies less than two months old may display anxiety in subtle hard-to-observe ways, made it difficult for mothers to observe and report back, therefore due to flawed methods babies might be quite social but just appear asocial

• only looked at one sample which had unique features-cultural and historical context (1960s working-class Glasgow), in collectivist cultures and others it is normal to have multiple attachments from very young

• poor temporal and ecological validity

positive evaluation of the Strange situation to determine types of attachment

• good predictive validity: outcomes predict a number of aspects of te baby’s later development, lots of research shows Type B (secure) babies have better outcomes later in life, better in school, less involvement in bullying, better mental health, Type C (insecure-resistant) and babies who don’t fit a category have worse outcomes, suggests it measures something real and meaningful in baby’s development

• good inter-rater reliability: Bick et al. tested inter-rater reliability for it, agreement on attachment type in 94% of cases, due to highly controlled conditions, behaviour involve large and easy to observe behaviours, doesn’t depend on subjective judgements

negative evaluation of the Strange situation to determine types of attachment

• measures something important associated in later development however might not be attachment, Kagan suggested genetically-influenced anxiety levels could cause variations in attachment behaviour, therefore may not actually be measuring attachment

• poor population validity, test may be culture-bound, it was developed in Britain and US, babies have different experiences in different cultures causing them to react differently to situations, in a Japanese study by Takahashi babies had lots of separation anxiety, so a disproportionate number identified as insecure-resistant, he suggests it was not due to high rates of attachment insecurity but the rarity that mothers and babies are separated in Japan

• Main and Solomon identified a fourth category which was a mix of resistant and avoidant behaviour showing Ainsworth’s categories of types is incomplete

  • Type D babies are unusual are normally are due to severe neglect or abuse to Ainsworth’s three categories can be seen as adequate for normal types of attachment

positive evaluation of Learning theory as an explanation of attachment

• some conditioning may be involved: although unlikely association with food plays a central role in attachment, conditioning may still, e.g. baby associating warmth and comfort with a particular adult influencing choice of main attachment figure

• Social learning theory developed later by Hay and Vespo suggested parents teach children to love them through modelling attachment behaviours e.g. hugging, also show approval when babies display attachment behaviours, shows two-way interaction, fits with reciprocity

  • however, still can’t explain how similar attachment is across human cultures and different mammal species, can’t explain complexity of early interactions

negative evaluation of Learning theory as an explanation of attachment

• counter-evidence from animal studies: Lorenz’s geese imprinted on first moving object they saw, no need for association with food, Harlow’s monkeys displayed attachment to cloth surrogate mother instead wire one with food, shows factors other than association with food are important

• counter evidence from studies on humans: Schaffer and Emerson found babies formed main attachment to their mother regardless if she fed them usually, Isabella et al. found high levels of interactional synchrony predicted quality of attachment, these suggest food is not main factor for attachment formation

• classical and operant conditioning see babies playing a passive role in attachment development, babies take an active role in interactions to produce attachment

positive evaluation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation of attachment

• support for social releasers: Brazelton et al. observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers, researchers instructed primary attachment figures to ignore social releasers, babies became increasingly distresses, some curled up and lay motionless, shows social releasers play a role in emotional development, important process of attachment development

• support for internal working model: Bailey et al. assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and one year olds, measured mothers attachment to own primary attachment figures, assessed attachment quality of baby, mither with poor attachment to primary attachment figures were more likely to have poorly attached babies

negative evaluation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation of attachment

• validity of monotropy challenged: Schaffer and Emerson found although most babies attach to one person first, some formed multiple attachments at the same time, first attachment does appear to have a strong influence on later behaviour, it may only be stronger an not different inequality from child’s other attachments Bowlby may be wrong that there is a unique quality and importance to child’s primary attachment

• attachments are not strongest influence on social development e.g. genetic differences in anxiety and sociability, Bowlby may have overstated importance of internal working model and parenting

• laws of continuity and accumulated separation have caused feminist concerns, made working women look like bad mothers, blames mother and restricts them e.g. returning to work

  • however in Bowlby’s time mother’s weren’t seen as important to child’s development, many custody disputes given to father- mothers not regarded as necessary, practical applications may have improved life for babies e.g. law of continuity with key workers in day care

positive evaluation of Lorenz’s research into animal studies of attachment

• research support: Regolin and Vallortigara support imprinting, chicks exposed to a simple shape combination that moved e.g. triangle with a rectangle in front, range of shape combination then moved in front of them, they followed the original, shows young animals born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object in the critical period

• humans may acquire some behaviour due to imprinting e.g. people preferring first computer system they used and struggle to adapt to others

negative evaluation of Lorenz’s research into animal studies of attachment

• lack of generalisability to humans: mammalian attachment system is more complex than birds, attachment is a two-way process, mothers also show an emotional attachment to their young

positive evaluation of Harlow’s research into animal studies of attachment

• real world application: helped social workers and clinical psychologists understand a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in child development, allows them to intervene to prevent poor outcomes, importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes

negative evaluation of Harlow’s research into animal studies of attachment

• generalisability to humans: monkeys are more similar to Lorenz’s birds, mammals share some attachment behaviours, human brain and human behaviour still more complex than a monkeys

• ethical issues: caused sever and long-term distress to the monkeys

  • his research has practical applications that have benefitted large numbers of human and animals

positive evaluation of the research into the influence of early attachment on later relationships

• research support: reviews of evidence found have agreed early attachment consistently predicts later attachment e.g. disorganised attachment strongly associated with later mental disorder, secure attachment has advantages for future developments

negative evaluation of the research into the influence of early attachment on later relationships

• not all evidence support existence of close links between early attachment and later development e.g. Regensburg longitudinal study followed 43 1-year-olds, at 16 interviewed again, there was no evidence of continuity of attachment type, may be other important factors

• validity issues with retrospective studies: relies on honesty and accurate perception from participants, hard to know if early attachment or adult attachment is being assessed, measures of early attachment used may be confounded with other factors so meaningless

• confounding variables: associations of attachments quality and later development may be affected by confounding variables, parenting style and genetically-influenced personality may influence both, can’t be sure early attachment is influencing later development

• influence of early attachment is not certain, people may become too pessimistic

  • could be used to help people especially those with disorganised attachment

positive evaluation of research into cultural variations in attachment

• indigenous research: most studies conducted by indigenous psychologists- from same cultural background as participants, potential problems of cross-cultural research avoided e.g. researchers misunderstanding language, having difficulty communicating instructions, ethnocentrisms- researchers’ stereotypes, enhances validity

• supports Bw=owlby’s theory attachment is innate and universal

negative evaluation of research into cultural variations in attachment

• not all cross-cultural attachment researchers were indigenous, Morelli and Tronick outsiders from American when studied child-rearing and attachment patterns in Efe of Zaire, data may have been affected by difficulties in gathering data from participants outside own culture, some data may have been affected by bias

• confounding variables: studies in different countries often have different methodologies, sample characteristics e.g. poverty, social class, urban/rural make-up, age of participants, environmental variables e.g. size of room, toys available, smaller rooms may be more attractive but harder to see proximity-seeking so more classified avoidant, attachment in non-matched studies in different countries may not show cross-cultural patterns

• imposed etic: assuming an idea or technique that works in one cultural context will work in another e.g. response to reunion, in Britain and US lack of affection may indicate avoidant behaviour, in Germany more likely seen as independence not insecurity, part of Strange Situation therefore may not work in Germany, behaviours measured by SS may not have same meanings in different cultures, comparing across cultures is meaningless

• multiple theories- nature vs nurture

positive evaluation of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

• new line of research support maternal deprivation having long-term effects, Levy et al, showed separating baby rats from mother for as little as a day had permanent effects on social development, not other aspects of development though, although Bowlby relied on flawed evidence to support theory, there are other sources of evidence for his ideas

• recent evidence as provided partial support for Bowlby’s ideas on maternal deprivation and psychopathy, Gao et al. showed poor quality maternal care associates with high rates of psychopathy in adults, even when other factors controlled, some support for idea that psychopathy is influenced by maternal care, if not exactly deprivation

negative evaluation of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

• flawed evidence: 44 thieves study is flawed because Bowlby carried out interviews on families and assessment for affectionless psychopathy himself, open to bias because he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to shows signs of psychopathy,, also influenced by Goldfarb’s research on development of deprived children in wartime orphanages, confounding variables was an issue: children had experienced early trauma and institutionalised care as well as prolonged separation, Bowlby’s sources of evidence had serious flaws

• deprivation and privation: confusion between different types of eaerly experience, Rutter drew important distinction between 2 types of early negative experience, deprivation is loss of primary attachment figure after attachment has developed, privation is failure to form attachment in first place, severe-long term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation was more likely privation, children studied by Goldfarb (deprived children in wartime orphanages) may have been prived not deprived, many children in 44 thieves had disrupted early lives so man have never formed strong attachments, Bowlby may have overestimated seriousness of effects of deprivation on children’s development

• critical vs sensitive period: Bowlby stated damage was inevitable if child hadn’t formed an attachment in first 2.5 years, there is evidence to suggest good quality aftercare can prevent most or all of damage, Koluchova reported case of Czech twins, experienced severe physical and emotional abuse from 18 months to 7, severely damaged emotionally, received excellent care, by teens fully recovered, lasting harm not inevitable even in cases of severe privation, ‘critical period’ better seen as ‘sensitive period’

• attempts to replicate 44 thieves study failed to produce similar results, Lewis looked at 500 young people, found no association between early separation and later criminality of relationship difficulties, cannot take Bowlby’s own evidence seriously

positive evaluation of Romanian orphan studies to investigate effects of institutionalisation

• real-world application: improved psychologists understanding of early institutional care and how to prevent worst effects, improvements in conditions e.g. children’s homes avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child, one or two to play a central role in emotional care, institutional care seen as undesirable option, high effort made to get foster care or adoption, increases chance of children in institutional care to develop normal attachments, not disinhibited attachment

• fewer confounding variables: previous orphan studies, children had varying degrees of previous trauma, hard to identify effects of them from effects of institutional care, Romanian children had mostly been handed over by loving parents who couldn’t afford them, less likely to be confounded by previous trauma (high internal validity)

  • may have introduced other confounding variables, quality of care in institutions were very bad, harmful effects of Romanian orphans may show poor institutional care, instead of just effects of institutional care

negative evaluation of Romanian orphan studies to investigate effects of institutionalisation

• lack of adult data: latest data from English Romanian adoptee study children were mid 20s, can’t tell long-term effects of institutional care e.g. mental health reasons, forming and maintaining adult romantic and parental relationships, study is longitudinal- long time before full effects on Romanian orphans, late-adopted children might catch up

• social sensitivity, results showing late-adopted children have poor developmental outcomes published while children growing up, parents/teachers might have lowered expectations, treated them differently

  • lots has been learned from Romanian orphan studies, might benefit institutionalised children so could be worth it

positive evaluation of research into the role of fathers

• real world application: can offer reassuring advice to parents, mothers feel pressured to stay home, fathers feel pressured to work, shows fathers can be primary attachment figures, and shows fathers aren’t needed e.g. to lesbians

negative evaluation of research into the role of fathers

• confusion over research questions: what is the role of the father?, some researchers investigated role as secondary attachment figure- fathers behave differently to mothers, some as primary attachment figure- fathers take on ‘maternal’ role, difficult to offer simple answer

• conflicting evidence: findings vary according to methodology used, longitudinal studies e.g. Grossmann et al. suggested fathers have important role in development from play and stimulation, this would mean children with single mothers/lesbian parents would be different to those with heterosexual, studies show they don’t, question remains unanswered

  • however, research could not be in conflict, could be father take on distinctive roles in heterosexual families, parents in single-mother/lesbian adapt to accommodate role played by fathers, so fathers have distinctive role but families without one can adapt

• preconceptions about fathers e.g. not primary caregivers, could cause observer bias, findings from research aren’t valid

  • psychologists are trained in issue of bias, have dual observations to reduce bias