Attachment

Attachment

A close two-way emotional bond between two individuals in which each sees the other as essential for their own emotional security. It’s recognised by behaviours such as:

* proximity
* separation distress
* secure - base behaviour

Reciprocity

Achieved when baby and caregiver respond to and elicit responses from each other.

For example, caregiver responds to infants smile by saying something, infant responds by making sounds of pleasure.

Both caregiver and infant can initiate interactions and take turns to do so.

Feldman and Eidelman (2007)

Reciprocity is achieved when baby and caregiver respond to and elicit responses from each other.

Mothers successfully respond around two-thirds of the time.

From around three months this interaction becomes more intense and reciprocal.

Interactional synchrony

Formal definition - ‘the temporal co-ordination of micro-level social behaviour’ (Feldman 2007)

Caregiver and infant reflect both the actions and emotions of the other and do this in a co-ordinated (synchronised) way.

Meltzoff and Moore (1977)

Observed the beginnings of interactional synchrony in babies as young as two weeks old:

* Adults displayed one of three facial expressions or one of three gestures.
* Filmed the baby's response.

Babies' expression and gestures were more likely to mirror those of the adults than chance would predict.

Isabella et al. (1989)

Observed 30 mothers and babies together and assessed the degree of synchrony. The researchers also assessed the quality of mother-baby attachment.

They found that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-baby attachment (e.g the emotional intensity of the relationship).

AO3 of research for caregiver-infant interactions

Strength of caregiver-infant research studies - The research for this topic uses filmed observations.

Caregiver-infant interactions are filmed from multiple angles. Fine details can be analysed later. Also, infants don’t know they’re being observed so their behaviour doesn’t change.

The studies have good reliability and validity.

AO3 of using babies in research studies

Limitation of caregiver-infant research - It’s difficult to observe babies’ behaviour as they are not well co-ordinated. We observe small gestures and changes in expression.

It’s also hard to interpret the meaning of babies’ movements.

This means we can’t be certain any interactions observed are meaningful.

AO3 of synchrony and reciprocity (Feldman (2012))

Limitation of synchrony and reciprocity - Points out that synchrony (and reciprocity) simply describe behaviours that occur at the same time.

These are robust phenomena in the sense that they can be reliably observed, but this may not be useful as it does not tell us their purpose.

This means that we cannot be certain from observations that reciprocity or synchrony are important in development.

Stages of attachment

Stage 1: Asocial stage (first few weeks)

Stage 2: Indiscriminate attachment (2-7 months)

Stage 3: Specific attachment (from 7 months)

Stage 4: Multiple attachments (by one year)

1st stage of attachment

Asocial stage - Baby’s behaviour is similar towards people and inanimate objects.

Some preference for familiar people.

Happier in the presence of other people.

2nd stage of attachment

Indiscriminate attachment - Babies now display more observable and social behaviour, with a preference for people over objects.

They recognise and prefer familiar people.

Don’t show stranger or separation anxiety.

Attachment is the same towards all - its indiscriminate

3rd stage of attachment

Specific attachment - Baby forms specific attachment with primary attachment figure. Show stranger and separation anxiety when separated from PAF.

PAF is usually the person who interacts the most and responds to the baby’s ‘signals’ with the most skill.

4th stage of attachment

Multiple attachments - Secondary attachments with other adults form.

In Schaffer and Emerson’s study 29% of babies had secondary attachments one month after forming a PAF.

By 1 year all infants had multiple secondary attachments.

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) Procedure

60 babies form Glasgow, most from working-class families.

Researchers visited babies and mothers at home every week for a year and again at 18 months.

Separation anxiety measured by asking mothers about their children's behaviour during everyday separations (e.g adult leaving the room).

Stranger anxiety was measured by asking mothers questions about their children's anxiety response to unfamiliar adults.

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) Findings

Babies developed attachments through a sequence of stages, from asocial through to a specific attachment to multiple attachments.

The specific attachment tended to be to the person who was most interactive and sensitive to babies' signals and facial expressions (i.e. reciprocity).

This was not necessarily the person the baby spent most time with.

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) (role of the father)

Found that majority of babies became attached to their mother first (this happens around 7 months). In only 3% of cases the father was the first sole object of attachment. In 27% of cases the father was joint first object of attachment with the mother.

AO3 of Schaffer and Emerson’s study (external validity)

Strength of Schaffer & Emerson - Most of the observations were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to researchers.

Alternative would’ve been observers present in the babies’ homes, which would’ve distracted babies.

This means its more likely the babies were behaving naturally while being observed so the study has external validity.

AO3 of Schaffer and Emerson’s study (counterpoint to external validity)

Counterpoint of S&E having external validity - Mothers may have been biased in what they reported. They might not have noticed when their baby was showing signs of anxiety.

Means even if the baby behaved naturally their behaviour may not have been accurately recorded.

AO3 of asocial stage (accurate)

Limitation of asocial stage - Theres poor evidence for the asocial stage. Due to stages of physical development babies have poor co-ordination.

This makes it hard for mothers to accurately report signs of anxiety and attachment.

So babies might be social but due to flawed methods appear asocial.

AO3 of the stages of attachment (application)

Strength of the stages of attachment - In the early stages babies can be comforted by any skilled adult.

During later stages care from unfamiliar adults may cause distress.

S&E’s stages can help parents making decision about day care.

Schaffer & Emerson (1964) (role of the father)

Found majority of babies became attached to their mother first (at around 7 months)

In only 3% of cases the father was the first sole object of attachment.

In 27% of cased the father was joint first object of attachment with the mother.

In 75% of babies attachment (secondary) was formed with their father at 18 months old.

Grossmann et al. (2002)

Carried out a longitudinal study looking at parents' behaviour and its relationship to the quality of children's attachments into their teens.

This research found that quality of attachment with the father was less important for adolescent attachment than the quality of attachment with the mother. Therefore fathers may be less important in long-term emotional development.

However, Grossmann et al. also found that the quality of fathers' play with babies was related to quality of adolescent attachments.

This suggests that fathers have a different role in attachment, one that is more to do with play and stimulation and less to do with emotional care.

Field (1978)

Filmed 4-month-old babies and found that primary caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smiling, imitating and holding babies than secondary caregiver fathers.

This shows they adopt behaviours more typical of the mother when being primary caregiver. These behaviours are related to interactional synchrony and the formation of emotional attachment.

AO3 of the role of the father (helpful)

Strength of the role of the father - Mothers may feel pressured to stay at home and fathers to work. However, research on the flexibility of the role of the father can be used to offer reassuring advice to parents.

Therefore, parental anxiety about the role of the father can be eased and make parenting decisions easier.

AO3 of role of the father (MacCallum and Golombok (2004))

Found that children without a father do not develop differently. This means the question of whether fathers have a distinctive role remains unanswered.

Lorenz (1952) Procedure

Imprinting - Konrad Lorenz randomly divided a large clutch of goose eggs:

* One half hatched with the mother goose in their natural environment.
* The other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz.

Mixed all goslings together to see whom they would follow. Lorenz also observed birds and their later courtship behaviour.

Lorenz (1952) Findings

Incubator group followed Lorenz, control group followed the mother.

Lorenz identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place e.g few hours after hatching. If imprinting did not occur within that time, chicks did not attach themselves to the mother figure.

Sexual imprinting also occurs whereby the birds acquire a template of the desirable characteristics required in a mate.

Harlow (1958) Procedure

Importance of contact comfort - Harry Harlow reared 16 rhesus monkeys with two wire model 'mother's:

* Condition 1 - milk was dispensed by the plain-wire 'mother'.
* Condition 2 - milk was dispensed by the cloth-covered 'mother'.

The monkeys' preferences were measured. To measure attachment-like behaviour, Harlow observed how the monkeys reacted when placed in frightening situations. For example, Harlow added a noisy mechanical teddy bear to the environment.

Harlow and his colleagues also continued to study the monkeys who has been deprived of their 'real' mother into adulthood.

Harlow (1958) Findings

Baby monkeys cuddled the cloth-covered mother in preference to the plain wire mother regardless of which dispensed milk.

This suggests that contact comfort was of more importance than food when it came to attachment behaviour. The monkeys sought comfort from the cloth-covered mother when frightened.

As adults, the monkeys who had been deprived of their real mothers suffered severe consequences - they were more aggressive, less sociable and less skilled in mating than other monkeys.

AO3 of Lorenz (Regolin and Vallortigara (1995))

Strength of Lorenz - Exposed chicks to simple shape-combinations that moved.

When shown a range of moving shapes the chicks followed these in preference of other shapes.

This suggests that young animals are born with and innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object.

AO3 of Lorenz (Guiton et al. (1966))

Limitation of Lorenz - Found that chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults (as Lorenz would have predicted), but that with experience they eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens.

This suggests that the impact of imprinting on mating behaviour is not as permanent as Lorenz believed.

AO3 of Harlow (Howe (1998))

Strength of Harlow - Harlow's research has helped social workers understand risk factors in child abuse and thus intervene to prevent it.

We also now understand the importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes.

This means that Harlow's research has benefitted both animals and humans.

AO3 of Harlow (generalisability)

Limitation of Harlow - Monkeys are not human. In a lot of ways the human mind is more complex.

This means we may not be able to generalise Harlow’s findings to animals.

AO3 of Harlow (ethical issues)

Ethical issues of Harlow - His procedures caused severe long-term distress to the money Ps. Even if his findings have important practical and theoretical applications.

This suggests Harlow’s research perhaps shouldn’t have been carried out despite it’s useful application

Dollard and Miller (1950)

Learning theory of attachment - This is sometimes called the 'cupboard love' explanation because it emphasises the importance of food in attachment formation.

Children learn to love whoever feeds them. This is explained further through classical and operant conditioning.

Classical conditioning

Caregiver starts as NS (neutral stimulus) that elicits no response (NR).

Food is UCS (unconditioned stimulus) that elicits an unconditioned response (UCR) of pleasure.

The mother brings the food so many times the baby starts to associate the food with the mother.

The NS becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS).

Then the baby produced a conditioned response (CR) of pleasure towards the mother.

Operant conditioning

Crying leads to a response from the caregiver (feeding). So everytime the caregiver provides the correct response the crying is reinforced as it provides a pleasurable consequence.

The caregiver received negative reinforcement and the baby receives positive reinforcement.

The interplay of these reinforcements strengthens an attachment.

Negative reinforcement

When a baby is reinforced for crying through operant conditioning the caregiver received negative reinforcement because the crying stops when they give the baby what they want.

The interplay of positive/negative reinforcement strengthens an attachment.

Sears et al. (1957)

Suggested as caregiver provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them.

Hunger is a primary drive - we are motivated to eat to reduce the hunger drive

Attachment is a secondary drive - learned by association

AO3 of the learning theory (choice of PAF)

Strength of the learning theory - Whilst food might not be central to attachment, some elements of conditioning could still be involved. For example, a baby’s choice of PAF may be as they associate them with warmth and comfort.

This means conditioning could still be important in the choice of PAF.

AO3 of the learning theory (Schaffer and Emerson (1964))

Limitation of the learning theory - Showed that for many babies their main attachment was not to the person who fed them.

This suggests that other factors are more important in attachment formation than feeding.

Alternate explanation (Hay and Vespo (1988))

Social learning theory - Suggest that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviour e.g hugging and kissing. Parents also reward babies with approval when they display their own attachment behaviour ('that's a lovely smile', etc).

This means that social learning theory can provide better explanations, including explaining the active role taken by babies in attachment development.

Bowlby (1958, 1969)

Monotropic theory - Bowlby gave an evolutionary explanation - that attachment is an innate system that gives a survival advantage. Imprinting and attachment evolved because they ensure young animals stay close to their caregivers and this protects them from hazards.

The theory is described as monotropic because of the emphasis on the child's attachment to one caregiver. This attachment is different from others and more important.

Monotropic & Laws

Having a PAF.

Bowlby believed the more time a baby spent with their PAF the better as:


1. Law of continuity - the more constant a child’s care the better the quality of attachment.
2. Law of accumulated separation - the effects of every separation add up; the ‘safest dose is zero dose’

Social releasers

Babies are born with a set of innate ‘cute’ behaviours (smiling, cooing, etc) that encourage attention from adults.

The purpose is to activate adult social interaction as attachment is a reciprocal system.

Critical period

Bowlby proposed a critical period of 2 years where the infant attachment system is active.

If attachment doesn’t form in this time a child will find it much harder to form one later.

Internal working model

Bowlby argued the child forms this (a mental representation) of the relationship with their PAF which serves as a template for future relationships.

A child with a loving and reliable PAF with expect all relationships to be like that. A child with poor treatment from PAF will expect the same from other relationships.

AO3 of social releasers (Brazelton et al. (1975))

Strength of social releasers - Instructed primary attachment figures to ignore their babies' social releaser.

Babies (who were previously shown to be normally responsive) initially showed some distress but eventually some curled up and lay motionless.

This supports the idea that social releasers play an important role in attachment development.

AO3 of the internal working model (Bailey et al. (2007))

Strength of the internal working model - Studied 99 mothers. Those with poor attachment to their own parents were more likely to have one-year-olds who were poorly attached. T

his supports Bowlby's idea of an internal working model of attachment as it is being passed through families.

AO3 of monotropic theory (unique quality)

Limitation of monotropic theory - The relationship with a PAF may be stronger than other attachments rather than different in quality.

Other family members may develop attachments with the baby that have the same qualities, such as comfort and a secure base.

Bowlby may have been wrong to suggest a unique quality to a child’s PAF.

AO3 of Bowlby’s theory (sexism)

Limitation of Bowlby’s theory - The laws of continuity and accumulated separation imply working mothers may damage their baby’s development.

Bowlby did draw attention to a mother’s importance and had real-world application.

Although it’s had important applications it may have contributed to the oppression of women, particularly working mothers.

Ainsworth and Bell (1970) Procedure

The 'Strange Situation' - Ainsworth and Bell developed the Strange Situation as a method to assess the quality of a baby's attachment to a caregiver. It is a controlled observation procedure in a lab (a controlled environment) with a two-way mirror through which psychologists can observe a baby's behaviour. Five categories are used to judge attachment quality:


1. Proximity-seeking: well-attached babies stay close to caregiver.
2. Exploration and secure-base behaviour: good attachment makes a baby confident to explore, using the caregiver as a point of safety.
3. Stranger anxiety: displayed by well-attached babies.
4. Separation anxiety: displayed by well-attached babies.
5. Response to reunion with caregiver after separation for a short period of time: well-attached babies are enthusiastic.

The procedure has seven 'episodes', each lasting three minutes:


1. Baby is encouraged to explore by caregiver.
2. Stranger enters and talks to caregiver.
3. Caregiver leaves.
4. Caregiver returns, stranger leaves.
5. Caregiver leaves baby alone.
6. Stranger returns.
7. Caregiver returns.

Ainsworth and Bell (1970) Findings

Ainsworth and Bell found distinct patterns in the way babies behaved. They identified three main types of attachments.


Secure attachment (Type B: 60-75% of British toddlers):

* Baby happy to explore but seeks proximity to caregiver (secure base).
* Shows moderate separation anxiety and stranger anxiety.
* Requires and accepts comfort from caregiver on reunion.

Insecure-avoidant attachment (Type A; 20-25%):

* Baby explores freely but does not seek proximity (no secure base).
* Shows little/no separation and stranger anxiety.
* Avoids contact at the reunion stage.

Insecure-resistant attachment (Type C: 3%)

* Baby explores less and seeks greater proximity.
* Shows considerable stranger and separation anxiety.
* Resists comfort when reunited with caregiver.

AO3 of the ‘Strange Situation’ (McCormick et al. (2016))

Strength of the ‘Strange Situation’ - Attachment type predicts later development. For example, secure babies typically have greater success at school.

This is evidence for the validity of the concept because it can explain (predict) future outcomes.

AO3 of the ‘Strange Situation’ (Kokkinos (2007))

Strength of the ‘Strange Situation’ - Insecure-resistant attachment is associated with the worst outcomes, e.g. bullying.

This is evidence for the validity of the concept because it can explain (predict) future outcomes.

AO3 of the ‘Strange Situation’ (Ward et al. (2006))

Strength of the ‘Strange Situation’ - Insecure-resistant attachment is associated with the worst outcomes, e.g. adult mental health problems.

This is evidence for the validity of the concept because it can explain (predict) future outcomes.

of the ‘Strange Situation’ (Bick et al. (2012))

Strength of ‘Strange Situation’ - Different observers watching the same babies generally agree on attachment type. Bick found 94% agreement in one team.

This may be because the Strange Situation takes place under controlled conditions and because the behavioural categories are easy to observe.

This mean that we can be confident that the attachment type of a baby identified in the Strange Situation does not just depend on who is observing them.

AO3 of the ‘Strange Situation’ (Kagan (1982))

Limitation of the ‘Strange Situation’ - Suggested that in fact temperament the genetically influenced personality of the child, is a more important influence on behaviour in the Strange Situation than attachment.

It means that temperament may be a confounding variable.

AO3 of the ‘Strange Situation’ (Takahashi (1986))

Limitation of the ‘Strange Situation’ - Suggests cultural differences in children's experiences mean they respond differently, e.g. Japanese babies show anxiety because they are not used to being left by caregiver.

This means it is difficult to know what the Strange Situation is measuring in some countries/cultures.

AO3 of the ‘Strange Situation’ (Main and Solomon (1986))

Limitation of the Strange Situation - Identified a fourth category of attachment:

* disorganised (Type D), a mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours.

However, Type D babies are unusual and have generally experienced some form of severe neglect of abuse associated with later psychological disorders.

This means that Ainsworth's classification is adequate as a description of normal variations in attachment.

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) Procedure

Meta-analysis - The researchers looked at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries. They also looked at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture.

They found 32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation had been used. These were conducted in eight countries, 15 in the US. Overall the students yielded results for 1990 children.

The data was meta-analysed, results being combined and weighted for sample size.

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) Findings

Secure attachment was the most common classification in all countries:

* 50% in China
* 75% in Britain

In individualist cultures rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to Ainsworth's original sample (all under 14%) but this was not true for the collectivist samples from China, Japan and Israel where rates were above 25% (and where rates of insecure-avoidant attachment were reduced).

This suggest that there were cultural differences in the distribution of insecure attachment. Variations between results of studies within the same country were actually 150% greater than those between countries. In the US, one study found 46% securely attached compared to one sample as high as 90%.

AO3 of the ‘Strange Situation’ (Simonelli et al. (2014))

Variation of the Strange Situation - Assessed 76 babies aged 12 months in Italy using the Strange Situation to see whether the proportion of attachment types still matched previous studies in Italy.

They found:

* 50% were secure
* 36% insecure-avoidant

This lower rate of secure attachment may be because increasingly mothers work long hours and use more childcare.

This shows that cultural changes can affect pattens of attachment.

AO3 of the ‘Strange Situation’ (Jin et al. (2012))

Variation in Korea - Compared the attachment types of 87 Korean babies to proportions in other studies.

They found similar patterns of secure and insecure attachment to other studies. However within insecure categories there were differences - only one baby was avoidant.

This pattern is similar to Japan and may be because both countries have similar child-rearing practices.

AO3 of studies on cultural variations

Strength of the studies on cultural variations in attachment - Most of the studies they looked at use indigenous researchers meaning they had the same cultural backgrounds as the Ps. E.g Grossmann et al. (1981) Germans working with German Ps.

This aids communication between researcher and Ps, which means theres more chance they communicated successfully - increasing the validity of the study.

AO3 of van I&K studies used

Limitation of van I&K studies used - Studies in other countries may not match Ps for sample characteristics (may use children of different ages or social class).

Environmental variables may also differ, e.g using smaller rooms encourage babies to explore more.

Studies may be imacted by confounding variables meaning they tell little about cultural differences in attachment.

AO3 of comparing attachment

Limitation of comparing attachment - Using the Strange Situation in a different cultural context may be meaningless.

It was designed in the US where lack of affection at reunion represents insecure attachment. But in Germany this is a sign of independence.

Therefore, it may be meaningless to compare attachment behaviours across countries.

Bowlby (1951)

Theory of maternal deprivation - Main points of the theory are:

* Continued emotional care is essential.
* Separation may lead to maternal deprivation.
* Separation is different from deprivation.
* Critical period of 2 and a half years.
* Intellectual development: lower IQ
* Emotional development: affectionless psychopathy.

Maternal deprivation

The emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their mother/mother substitute.

Bowlby proposed that continuous care from a mother is essential for normal psychological development, and that prolonged separation from this adult causes serious damage to emotional and intellectual development.

Goldfarb (1947)

Found lower IQs in children from institutions compared to fostered children.

Supports Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation that if a child is deprived of maternal care for too long in the critical period they’ll have a lower IQ.

Bowlby (1944) Procedure

44 thieves study - The sample in this study was 44 delinquent teenagers accused of stealing. All 'thieves' were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy:

* characterised by a lack of affection, guilt and empathy

Families were also interviewed to establish any prolonged separations from mothers.

Bowlby (1944) Findings

14 of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths:

* 12 of these has experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first two years of their lives
* only five of the remaining 30 'thieves' had experienced separations

This suggests prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.

AO3 of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (Lévy et al. (2003))

Strength of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation - There is some evidence from newer studies to support the theory of maternal deprivation. For example, Lévy et al. found that separating baby rats for one day had a permanent effect on their social development.

This means that there is now some evidence for the theory of maternal deprivation after all.

AO3 of maternal deprivation (basis of theory)

Limitation of maternal deprivation - 44 thieves study was open to bias - Bowlby assessed both deprivation and psychopathy, knowing what he hoped to find.

Goldfard (1943) used wartime orphans who were traumatised and lacked good aftercare so theres confounding variables.

This means Bowlby originally had no solid evidence to base his theory of maternal deprivation on.

AO3 of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (Rutter (1981))

Limitation of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation - Made the distinction between deprivation (separation from an attachment figure) and privation (failure to form an attachment) - privation has more serious effects.

The children Bowlby studied (e.g. the 44 thieves), and others he based his ideas on (e.g. Goldfarb's wartime orphans) may have been prived rather than deprived.

This means that Bowlby probably exaggerated the effects of deprivation on development.

AO3 of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (Lewis (1954))

Limitation of the theory of maternal deprivation - Replication of Bowlby's 44 thieves study which have generally failed to reproduce his findings on psychopathy.

This shows it has conflicting evidence and this means the link between maternal deprivation and psychopathy are unclear.

AO3 of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (Gao et al. (2010))

Limitation of the theory of maternal deprivation - Some more recent research has found links between poor maternal care and adult psychopathy.

This shows it has conflicting evidence and this means the link between maternal deprivation and psychopathy are unclear.

AO3 of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (Koluchová (1976))

Limitation of Bowlby’s theory - Conducted a case study of Czech twin boys isolated from age 18 months (locked in a cupboard). Later they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully.

Shows that severe deprivation can have positive outcomes provided the child has some social interaction and good aftercare.

This means that the period identified by Bowlby may be a 'sensitive' one but it cannot be critical.

Rutter et al. (2011) Procedure

English and Romanian adoptee study (ERA) - The researchers have followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans who experienced very poor conditions before being adopted in the UK.

This longitudinal study has tested the extent to which good care can make up for poor early experiences in institutions.

Physical, cognitive and emotional development has been assessed at 4, 6, 11, 15 and 22-25 years. The study also followed a control group of 52 adopted children from the UK.

Rutter et al. (2011) Findings

Half of the orphans showed delayed intellectual development when they came to the UK. At age 11 recovery rates were related to their age at adoption:

* Those adopted before six months has a mean IQ of 102.
* Those adopted after two years had a mean IQ of 77

These differences continued to be apparent at age 16 (Beckett et al. 2010). Frequency of disinhibited attachment related to the age at adoption:

* Apparent in children adopted after they were six months old clinginess, attention-seeking and indiscriminate affection to strangers.
* Rare in children adopted before the age of six months.

These findings support Bowlby's view that there is a sensitive period in the development of attachments - a failure to form an attachment before the age of six months (and after the age of 2 years) appears to have long-lasting effects.

Zeanah et al. (2005)

Bucharest early intervention project (BEI) - The researchers used the Strange Situation to assess attachment in 95 Romanian children aged 12-31 months who has spent most of their lives in institutional care.

They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never experienced institutional care.

Only 19% of the institutionalised group were securely attached

* 74% of controls

44% of the institutionalised group had characteristics of disinhibited attachment

* 20% of the controls

Disinhibited attachment

Such children tend to be equally friendly and affectionate towards people they know well or total strangers. This may be an adaption to multiple caregivers.

Damage to intellectual development

Institutionalised children often show signs of intellectual disability. This effect is not as pronounced if the children are adopted before 6 months of age.

AO3 of ERA (Langton (2006))

Strength of ERA - Results from this research have led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions:

* Children's homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child.
* They have one or two 'key workers' who play a central role.

This means children in institutional care have a chance to develop normal attachments and disinhibited attachments is avoided.

AO3 of ERA (confounding variables)

Strength of ERA - There were many orphan studies before this one where children involved experienced loss/trauma before they were institutionalised. Other things (neglect, abuse) meant it was hard to observe the effects of institutionalisation in isolation due to confounding variables.

There are fewer confounding variables in this study so it has high internal validity.

AO3 of ERA (adult development)

Limitation of ERA - It’s too soon to say whether children suffered permanent effects as we only have data from their early 20s. It will be some time before we have key information about maintaining relationships.

This means the ERA studies have not yet yielded their most important findings.

Internal working model

The quality of a child’s first attachment is crucial because it provides a template that will influence their future relationships due to the influence of internal working model created by the first attachment.

A child who’s first experience of attachment is a loving relationship will seek functional relationships and have good relationship expectations in the future.

A child who’s first experience of attachment is a bad relationship will struggle to form relationships, or not behave appropriately in them and have bad relationship expectations in the future.

Kerns (1994)

Securely attached babies tend to go onto form the best quality childhood relationships.

Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998)

Securely attached children are less likely to be involved in bullying.

Insecure-avoidant children are most likely to be victims

Insecure-resistant are most likely to be bullies.

Bailey et al. (2007) (internal working model)

Found the majority of mothers had the same attachment classification to their babies as they had to their own mothers.

This shows people base their parenting style on their internal working model

Hazan and Shaver (1987)

The love quiz - The researchers analysed 620 replies to a 'love quiz' printed in an American local newspaper. The quiz assessed three different aspects of relationships:


1. current and most important relationship
2. general love experiences
3. attachment type.

The respondents' attachment type was reflected in their romantic relationships:

* Secure respondents were the most likely to have a good and longer-lasting romantic relationships.
* Avoidant respondents tended to be jealous and fear intimacy.

McCarthy (1999)

Studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when they were infants to establish their early attachment type.

Those assessed as…

* securely attached as infants had the best adult friendships and romantic relationships
* insecure-resistant as infants had particular problems maintaining friendships
* insecure-avoidant as infants struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships.

AO3 of early attachment having an effect on later relationships (Fearon and Roisman (2017))

Strength of early attachment having an effect on later relationships - They conducted a review which concluded that infant attachment influenced development in many ways.

Disorganised attachment was most predictive e.g. of later mental disorder.

This means that insecure attachment appears to convey a disadvantage for children's development.

AO3 of early attachment in later relationships (Becker-Stoll et al. (2008))

Limitation of early attachment in later relationships - Regensbury longitudinal study found no evidence of continuity of attachment type from age 1 to 16 years.

This means it is not clear how strongly attachment influences later development.

AO3 of internal working models (Zimmerman (2000))

Limitation of internal working models - Assessed infant attachment type and adolescent attachment to parents.

There was very little relationship between quality of infant and adolescent attachment.

This is a problem because it is not what we would expect if internal working models were important in development.

AO3 of studies into attachments influence on later relationship (confounding variables)

Limitation of studies into attachments influence on later relationship - Studies do make assessments of infant attachment and follow up children.

However, they may be affected by confounding variables as parenting style/personality could affect attachment and later development.

This means we can’t be sure that it’s infant attachment thats influencing later development it may be confounding variables.