ATTACHMENT

Research into caregiver-infant interactions AO3

• Meltzoff and Moore > Interactional synchrony > Early as 2-3 weeks > Isabella > More synchronisation = more secure attachment

• Tronick > Still-face > Lack of sensitive responsiveness causes distress > Attachment is not passive and babies contribute > Reciprocity 

• High degree of control > Filmed observations in a lab setting > Can control distractions and can replay video to avoid missed observations > Can establish inter-rater reliability > Covert 

• Difficulty determining and observing > Babies lack co-ordination > movements and expressions may be due to this rather than deliberate 

Schaffer’s stages of attachment AO3

• Good external validity > Most observations were made by parents in an everyday setting > HOWEVER may have social desirability bias as self-report was used 

• Poor evidence for asocial stage > Young babies have poor co-ordination so may not be able to express emotions properly > hard to measure  

• Real world application > Day care can be problematic during specific attachment stage 

• Generalisability > Only looked at working class families from Glasgow so may not apply to other cultures 

Role of the father AO3

• Confusion over research questions > What does ‘role of the father’ mean > Role as primary, role as secondary > Hard to answer when do not know what’s discussed 

• Conflicting evidence > methodology varies > Grossman suggests fathers have a play / stimulation role > McCallum and Golombok refutes > Question remains unanswered 

• Real-world application > Can relieve stress > Mothers pressured to care, fathers to work, fathers can be primary, single-mother and lesbian couples don’t need to worry 

• Bias in research > Observer may note what they expect to see rather than objective reality > stereotypes on how fathers should be stricter like in media 

 

 

Animal studies of attachment AO3

Harlow: 

• Importance of contact comfort, refutes learning theory 

• Supports Bowlby’s MDT 

Lorenz: 

• Imprinting supports monotropic theory 

• Sexual imprinting supported by Guiton et al > chicken and rubber gloves 

Learning theory of attachment AO3

• Not supported by animal studies (Harlow or Lorenz) > Harlow’s monkeys prioritised comfort contact, Geese imprinted on first moving object

• Not supported by human studies metapelets in Israel > Responsible for feeding, but infants do not get attached > Schaffer and Emerson > Babies usually attached to mothers even if they didn’t feed them

• Limitation > Likely better explained by SLT > babies get congratulated and also observe models

• Strength > even if food isn’t the central element, conditioning may still play a large role > feelings of comfort rather than food

Bowlby’s monotropic theory AO3

• Support from Lorenz – Adaptive advantage, monotropy, critical period

• Feminist concerns regarding law of accumulated separation 

• Support from Brazelton – Babies release social releasers and when these are ignored babies withdraw and lay motionless 

• Hazan and Shaver – Support for internal working model  

Strange situation AO3

• Good predictive validity > Children who are secure have healthier relationships, less involvement in bullying > Better mental health (Ward) 

• Good inter-rater reliability > Bick et al found agreement for attachment types in 94% of cases between trained observers > easy-to-judge movements and controlled 

• SS was developed in UK / USA, may not be appropriate to use for collectivist > Takahashi 

• Another attachment type? > Solomon and Main > Disorganised > Someone craves connection but is fearful of closeness > usually from severe abuse or neglect 

Cultural variations AO3

• Most studies conducted by indigenous psychologists > potential problems can be avoided such as misinterpretation of the language > enhanced validity 

• Confounding variables > social class and upbringing > There were large variances in data within the same country > studies which aren’t matched according to these may not reveal cross-cultural patterns 

• Imposed etic > Behaviours measured in one culture may not have the same meaning in another > e.g: Germany and avoidance behaviours are normalised 

• Competing explanations > Similar attachment types > Bowlby says this is due to attachment being innate > VI and K say global media presents a particular way parents and babies are meant to behave 

Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory AO3

• Bowlby’s 44 thieves study > Support 

• Hodges and Tizard > Support > Children who remained in institutionalisation or returned to families had worse development than those adopted early into loving families  

• Koluchova and the Czech twins > Refute > Twins badly maltreated by parents, adopted at 7 > caught up by 14

• Little John > Support > 17 months and left in care for 9 days 

Romanian orphans AO3

• Real-world application > Langton > Reduce the negative effects of children living outside of home > only 2 ‘key workers’ > best efforts to put children in care 

• Fewer confounding variables > Earlier studies (like from WW2), children from different upbringings > Romanian orphans children given up by loving families > higher internal validity > CP > investigated poor care rather than institutional care in general 

• Lack of adult data > Latest data is from children in mid-to-early 20s > Can’t answer questions on long-term effects of institutionalisation > longitudinal 

• Socially sensitive data > Results show late-adopted children have poor developmental outcomes > others may treat them patronisingly > self-fulfilling prophecy 

Attachment on childhood and adult relationships AO3

• Hazan and Shaver > Attitudes towards relationships  

• Myron-Smith and Wilson > 7 to 11-year-olds from London > Self-report questionnaire on bullying behaviours  

• Confounding variables > cannot be entirely sure that it is early attachment affecting development 

• Validity issues > most studies investigating use self-report