psychology - attachment

reciprocity

• an interaction is reciprocal when each person responds to the other and elicits a response from them

interactional synchrony

the temporal co ordination of micro level social behaviour

studies into interactional synchrony

• meltzoff and moore (1977)

• observed the beginnings of international synchrony in infants as young as 2 weeks old

• an adult displayed one of three facial expressions or one of three distinctive gestures

• childs response was filmed and identified by independent observers

• an association was found between the expression or gesture the adult had displayed and the actions of babies

research into synchrony

• isabela et al (1989)

• observed 30 mothers and infants together and assessed the degree of synchrony

• also assessed the quality of mother infant attachment

• found that high kevels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother infant attachment

evaluation for caregiver infant interactions

• it is hard to know what is happening when observing infants

• controlled observations capture fine detail

• observations don’t tell us the purpose of synchrony and reciprocity

it is hard to know what is happening when observing infants

• gratier(2003) - many studies involving observation of interactions between mothers and infants have shown the same patterns of interaction

• HOWEVER, what is being observed is merely hand movements or changes in expression - is is extremely difficult to be certain what is taking place from the infants perspective bases on these observations

• this means we cannot know for certain that behaviours in mother infant interaction have a special meaning

controlled observations capture fine detail

• observations of mother-infant interactions are well controlled procedures- both mother and infant are filmed and often from multiple angles

• ensures that very fine details of behaviour can be recorded and later analysed

• babies don’t know or care that they are being observed so their behaviour does not change in response to controlled observation - reduces demand characteristics which is a strength because research has good validity

observation don’t tell us the purpose of synchrony and reciprocity

• feldman 2012 states that synchrony 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 particularly useful as it does not tell us their purpose

• HOWEVER there is some evidence that reciprocal interaction and synchrony are helpful in the development of mother-infant attachment as well as helpful in stress responses, empathy ,language and moral development

attachment figures

• parent-infant attachment

• the role of the father

• father as primary carers

parent-infant attachment

• schaffer and emerson 1964 found that the majority of babies did become attached to their mother first(around 7 months) and within a few weeks or months formed secondary attachments to other family members including the father

• in 75% of the infants studied an attachment was formed with the father by the age of 18 months - this was determined by the fact that the infants protested when their father walked away

the role of the father

• grossman(2002) carried out a longitudinal study looking at both parents behaviour and its relationship to the quality of childrens attachments into their teens

• quality of infant attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to childrens attachment in adolescence suggesting that father attachment was less important

• HOWEVER the quality of fathers play with infants was related to the 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 nurturing

fathers as primary caregivers

• tiffany field(1978) filmed 4 month old babies in face to face interaction with primary caregiver mothers , secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiver fathers

• primary caregiver fathers like mothers spent more time smiling imitating and holding infants that the secondary caregiver fathers

• this behaviour appears to be important in building an attachment with the infant - meaning that fathers can be the more nurturing attachment figure

• the key to attachment relationship is the level of responsiveness not the gender of the parent

evaluation for attachment figure studies

• inconsistent findings on fathers

• if fathers have a distinct role why aren’t children without fathers different?

• why don’t fathers generally become primary attachments?

inconsistent findings on fathers

• research into the role fathers in attachment is confusing because different researchers are interested in different questions

• some psychologists are interested in understanding the role fathers have as secondary attachment figures whereas others are more concerned with the father as primary attachment figure

• the former have tended to see fathers behaving differently from mothers and having a distinct role

• the latter have tended t find that fathers can take on a maternal role

• problem because it means psychologists cannot easily answer a single question about the role of fathers in attachment

if fathers have a distinct role why arent children without fathers different

• grossman found that fathers as secondary attachment figures had an important role in their childrens development

• HOWEVER other studies have found that children growing up in single or same sex parent families do not develop any differently form those in two parent heterosexual families

• suggests that the fathers role as a secondary attachment figure is not important

why don’t fathers generally become primary attachments

• the fact that fathers tend to not become the primary attachment figure could simply be the result of traditional gender roles - women are expected to be more caring and nurturing then men

• therefore fathers simply don’t feel they should act like that

• HOWEVER it could be that female hormones such as oestrogen create higher levels or nurturing and therefore women are biologically pre-disposed to be the primary attachment figure

which psychologists experimented into attachment

schaffer and emerson (1964)

aim of schaffer and emersons study

to investigate the formation of early attachment in particular the age at which they developed , their emotional intensity and to whom they were directed

participants of schaffer and emersons experiment

• involved 60 babies

• 31 male and 29 female

• all from Glasgow

• majority were from skilled working class families

procedure of schaffer and emersons experiment

• the babies and their mothers were visited at home every month for the first year and again at 18 months

• the researchers asked the mothers questions about the kind of protest their babies showed in seven everyday separations e.g. adult leaving the room - this was designed to measure the infants attachment

• researchers also assessed stranger anxiety- the infants anxiety response to unfamiliar adults

findings of schaffer and emersons study

• between 25 and 32 weeks of age about 50% of the babies showed signs of separation anxiety towards a particular adult, usually the mother (specific attachment)

• attachment tended to be to the caregiver who was most interactive and sensitive to infant signals and facial expressions(i.e. reciprocity)

• this was not necessarily the person with whom the infant spent most time

• by the age of 40 weeks 80% of the babies had a specific attachment and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments

evaluation for schaffer and emersons experiment

• good external validity

• longitudinal design

• limited sample characteristics

good external validity

• carried out in the families own homes and most of the observation was actually done by parents during ordinary activities and reported to researchers later

• this means that the behaviour of the babies was unlikely to be affected by the presence of observers therefore it is likely participants behaved naturally while being observed

• study has good external validity

longitudinal design

• strength=study was carried out longitudinally - this means that the same children were followed up and observed regularly

• longitudinal designs do not have the confounding variable of individual differences between participants so therefore have better internal validity

limited sample characteristics

• all the families involved were from the same district and social class in the same city

• study happened over 50 years ago

• limitation because child rearing practises vary from one culture to another and one historical period to another

• therefor we cannot generalise these results on the wider population

what are the stages of attachment

• stage 1: asocial stage

• stage 2: indiscriminate attachment

• stage 3: specific attachment

• stage 4: multiple attachments

stage 1 : asocial stage

• baby is recognising and forming bonds with careers

• babys behaviour towards non-human objects and humans is quite similar

• babies show some preference for familiar adults in that those individuals find it easier to calm them

• babies are happier when in the presence of other humans

stage 2: indiscriminate attachment

• from 2-7 months babies display more observable social behaviour

• show a preference for people rather than inanimate objects and recognise and prefer familiar adults

• usually accept cuddles and comfort from any adult and they do not usually show separation anxiety or stranger anxiety

• their attachment behaviour is therefore said to be indiscriminate because it is not different towards any one person

stage 3: specific attachment

• from around 7 months the majority of babies start to display anxiety towards strangers and to become anxious when separated from one particular adult

• at this point baby is said to have formed a specific attachment

• this adult is termed the primary attachment figure - this person is not necessarily the person the child spends most time with but the one who offers the most interaction and responds to the babys signals with the most skill

stage 4: multiple attachments

• shortly after babies start to show attachment behaviour towards one adult they usually extend this attachment behaviour to multiple attachments with other adults with whom they regularly spend time- these relationships are called secondary attachments

• in schaffer and emerson study 29% of the children had secondary attachments within a month of forming a primary attachment - by the age of one year, the majority of infants had developed multiple attachments

evaluation for stages of attachment

• problem studying the asocial stage

• conflicting evidence on multiple attachments

• measuring multiple attachment

problem studying the asocial stage

• schaffer and emerson describe the first few weeks of life as the asocial stage although important interactions take place in those weeks - the problem is that babies that are young have poor co-ordination and are generally pretty much immobile

• therefore it is difficult to make any judgements about them based on observations of their behaviour as there isn’t much observable behaviour

conflicting evidence on multiple attachments

• it is not entirely clear when children become capable of multiple attachments

• bowlby (1969) most babies form attachments to a single main carer before they become capable of developing multiple attachments

• van Ijzendoorn et al(1993) who works in those cultural contexts where multiple caregivers are the norm , believes babies form multiple attachments from the outset

• such cultures are called collectivist because families work together jointly in everything - such as producing food and child rearing

measuring multiple attachment

• problem with how multiple attachment is assessed

• just because a baby gets distressed when an individual leaves the room does not necessarily mean that the individual is a true attachment figure

• bowlby(1969) pointed out that children have playmates as well as attachment figures and may get distressed when a playmate leaves the room but this does not signify attachment

• limitation of schaffer and emersons stages because their observation does not take into account the differences between behaviour shown towards playmates and secondary attachment figures

which psychologists investigated animal studies of attachment

lorenz (geese and ducks) and harlow (monkeys)

procedure of lorenz’s study

• set up a classic experiment in which he randomly divided a clutch of goose eggs

• half the eggs were hatched by with the mother goose in their natural environment and the other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was lorenz

findings of lorenz study

• the incubator group followed lorenz everywhere whereas the control group hatched in the presence of their mother followed her

• when the two groups were mixed up the control group continued to follow the mother and the experimental group followed lorenz - this is known as imprinting

what is imprinting

whereby bird species that are mobile from birth attach to and follow the first moving object they see

what is the time in which imprinting needs to take place referred to

critical period - this varies on the species which can just be a few hours to several days after hatching

what happens if imprinting does not occur within the critical period

chicks did not attach themselves to a mother figure

lorenz investigation on sexual imprinting

• investigated the relationship between imprinting and adult mate preferences

• observed that birds that imprinted on a human would often later display courtship behaviour towards humans

• case study lorenz(1952) described a peacock that had been reared in the reptile house of a zoo where the first moving objects the peacock saw after hatching were giant tortoises

• as an adult this peacock would only direct courtship behaviour towards giant tortoises- lorenz concluded that this meant he had undergone sexual imprinting

evaluation of lorenz research

• generalisability to humans

• some of lorenzs observations have been questioned

generalisability to humans

• limitation= results of animal studies cannot be generalised to human behaviour

• mammalian attachment system is quite different from that in birds e.g. mammalian mothers show more emotional attachment to young than do birds and mammals may be able to form attachments at any time , albeit less easily than in infancy

some of lorenz’s observations have been questioned

• other researchers argue lorenz’s conclusions that imprinting has a permanent effect on mating behaviour is not applicable

• guiton et al (1966) found that chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults but that with experience they eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens

• suggests that the impact of imprinting on mating behaviour is not as permanent as lorenz believed

harlows experiment procedure

• harlow (1958) tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother

• in one experiment he reared 16 monkeys with two wire model mothers

• in one condition milk was dispensed by the plain wire mother whereas in the second condition the milk was dispensed by the cloth covered mother

findings of harlows study

• baby monkeys cuddled the soft object in preference to the wire one and sought comfort from the cloth one when frightened regardless of which dispensed milk

• this showed that ‘contact mirror’ was of more importance to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour

maternally deprived monkey as adults

• harlow followed the monkeys who had been deprived of a real mother into adulthood to see if this early maternal deprivation had a permanent effect - found severe consequences

• the monkeys reared with wire mothers only were the most dysfunctional however even those reared with a soft toy as a substitute did not develop normal social behaviour

• they were more aggressive and less sociable than other monkeys and they bred less often than is typical for monkeys being unskilled at mating

• as mothers some of the deprived monkey s neglected their young and others attacked their children even killing them in some cases

the critical period for normal development

• like lorenz , harlow concluded that there was a critical period for this behaviour - a mother figure had to be introduced to an infant monkey within 90 days for an attachment to form

• after this time attachment was impossible and the damage done by early deprivation became irreversible

evaluation of harlows research

• theoretical value

• practical value

• ethical issues

theoretical value

• harlows findings have had a profound effect on psychologists understanding of human mother-infant attachment

• showed that attachment does not develop as the result of being fed by a mother figure but as a result of contact comfort

• showed the importance of the quality of early relationships and successfully rear children

practical value

• harlows research has had important applications in a range of practical contexts

  Howe(1998) it has helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse and so intervene to prevent it

• we can now understand the importance of proper attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and also in breeding programmes in the wild

ethical issues

• the monkeys suffered greatly as a result of harlows procedures

• the species is considered similar enough to humans to be able to generalise the findings which also means that their suffering was presumably human-like

• harlow himself was well aware of the suffering he caused - harlow referred to the wire mothers as iron maidens after a medieval torture device

who proposed that caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory

dollard and miller (1950)

learning theory

is a psychological framework that suggests caregiver-infant attachment arises from conditioned responses to stimuli, emphasizing the role of reinforcement and learning in establishing these bonds

what does learning theory propose about caregiver-infant attachment

that attachment develops through parents feeding their child and providing comfort, leading to positive reinforcement in the child's behaviour

classical conditioning regarding learning theory

• food serves as an unconditioned stimulus - being fed gives us pleasure and we don’t have to learn that so it is an unconditioned response

• a caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus

• when the same person provides the food over time they become associated with ‘food’ - when the baby sees this person there is an immediate expectation of food

• the neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus

• one conditioning has taken place the sight of the caregiver produces a conditioned response of pleasure - causing the baby to attach to the caregiver

operant conditioning regarding learning theory

• crying leads to a response from the caregiver - like feeding

• as long as the caregiver provides the correct response - crying is reinforced

• the baby then directs crying for comfort towards the caregiver who responds with comforting ‘social suppressor behaviour’

• this reinforcement is a two-way process - at the same time as the baby is reinforced for crying - the caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops - escaping from something unpleasant

• this interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment

drive reduction

• primary drive= hunger is a primary drive as it’s an innate - biological motivator as we are motivated to eat in order to reduce the hunger drive

• secondary drive= as caregivers provide food , the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them

• attachment is thus a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive

evaluation for learning theory

• counter-evidence from animal research

• counter-evidence from human research

• learning theory ignores other factors associated with forming attachments

counter-evidence from animal research

• animal studies show that some actually young animals do not necessarily attach to those who feed them

• lorenz’s geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them

• harlow’s monkeys attached to a soft surrogate in preference to a wire one that dispensed milk

• this suggests that attachment does not develop as a result of feeding in animals - must be the same for humans

• this is a limitation as it suggests that learning theory is inaccurate decreasing its validity and reliability

counter-evidence from human research

• studies with infants shows that feeding does not appear to be an important factor in humans

• schaffer and emersons study - many of the babies developed a primary attachment to their biological mother even though other careers did most of the feeding

• limitation of learning theory because it suggests that feeding is not the key element to attachment and so there is no unconditioned stimulus or primary drive involved

learning theory ignores other factors associated with forming attachments

• isabella et al (1989) suggests that the quality of attachment is associated with factors like developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony

• studies have shown that the best quality attachments are with sensitive careers that pick up infant signals and respond appropriately

• therefore it attachment developed purely because or primarily as a result of feeding there would be no purpose for these complex interactions and we could not expect to find relationships between them and the quality of infant-caregiver attachment

factors apart of bowlby’s monotropic theory

• monotropy

• social releasers and the critical period

• internal working model

what did bowlby propose

proposed that human infants have an innate tendency to form attachments to their primary caregiver , most often their mother - this innate system has survival value

imprinting in animals (lorenz and harlow research) and attachment in humans evolved because they ensure that young animals stay close to their caregivers and protect them from hazards

what does monotropic mean

a primary attachment figure

why is bowlbys theory described as monotropic

because he placed great emphasis on a childs attachment to one particular caregiver

monotropy

• bowlbys theory is described as monotropic because he placed great emphasis on a childs attachment to one particular caregiver

• he believed that the childs attachment to this one caregiver is different and more important than others - bowlby called this person the ‘mother but it was clear that it need not be the biological mother or indeed a woman

• bowlby believed that the more time spent a baby spent with this mother figure/primary attachment figure, the better, the two reasons for this :

  • the law of continuity states that the more constant and predictable a childs care, the better the quality of their attachment

  • the law of accumulated separation stated that the effects of every separation from the mother add up ‘ and the safest dose is therefore a zero dose’

social releasers

• bowlby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate ‘cute’ behaviours like smiling , cooing and gripping that encourage attention from adults - he called these social releasers because their purpose is to activate adult social interaction and so make an adult attach to the baby

• bowlby recognised that attachment was a reciprocal process - both mother and baby are ‘hard-wired’ to become attached

• the interplay between baby and adult attachment systems gradually builds the relationship between baby and caregiver, beginning in the early weeks of life

what is the critical period

• babies have an innate drive to become attached - there is a critical period for this to occur - just as the imprinting process babies must form the attachment with their caregiver during a critical period

• this is between about 7 months to 2 years old

• bowlby states that if this didn’t happen during this period the child is unlikely to form an attachment and the child would be damaged for life , socially, emotionally, intellectually and physically

• bowlby viewed it more as a sensitive period - the child is maximally sensitive at the age of 2 and if the attachment is not formed in this time the child will find it much harder to form one later

who proposed the internal working model

bowlby

what is the internal working model

• bowlby proposed that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary attachment figure

• this is a model for relationships - which acts as a template for future relationships because it generates expectations of how relationships are like based on their first relationship with their primary attachment figure

• the internal working model also affects the childs later ability to be a parent themselves - people tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being parented - this explains why children from functional families tend to have similar families themselves

example of internal working model

a child whose first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to form an expectation that all relationships are as loving and reliable and they will bring these qualities to future relationships

However a child whose first relationship involves poor treatment will tend to form further poor relationships in which they expect such treatment from others and/or treat others in that way

evaluation of bowlbys explanation of attachment

• validity of monotropy challenged

• support for social releasers

• support for internal working model - counterpoint

evaluation of bowlbys explanation of attachment : validity of monotropy challenged

P = one limitation of bowlbys theory is that the concept of monotropy lacks validity

E = rudolph schaffer and peggy emerson (1964) found that although most babies did not attach to one person at first , a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time

Also, although the first attachment does appear to have a particularly strong influence on later behaviour, this may simply mean it is stronger , not necessarily different in quality from the childs other attachments e.g. other attachments to family members provide all the same key qualities (emotional support, a safe base etc)

C = this means that bowlby may be incorrect that there is a unique quality and importance to the childs primary attachment

evaluation of bowlbys explanation of attachment : support for social releasers

P = one strength of bowlbys theory is the evidence supporting the role of social releasers

E = there is clear evidence that cute baby behaviours are designed to elicit interaction from caregivers

Brazelton et al (1975) observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers - the researchers then instructed the babies primary attachment figures to ignore their babies’ social releasers

Babies who were previously shown to be normally responsive - became increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and lay motionless

C = this illustrates the role of social releasers in emotional development and suggests that they are important in the process of attachment development

evaluation of bowlbys explanation of attachment : support for internal working model

P = a strength of bowlbys theory is support for the internal working model

E = the internal working model predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed from one generation to the next

heidi bailey et al (2007) assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their one year old babies

the researchers measured the mothers attachment to their own primary attachment figures ( their parents) - the researchers also assessed the attachment quality of the babies

they found that mothers with poor attachment to their own primary attachment figures were more likely to have poorly attached babies

C = this supports bowlbys idea that mothers’ ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their internal working models - which in turn comes from their own early attachment experiences

evaluation of bowlbys explanation of attachment : counterpoint to support for internal working model

P = there are probably more important influences on social development

E = e.g. kornienko (2016) some psychologists believe that genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviour in both babies and adults - these differences could also impact on their parenting ability

C = this means that bowlby may have overstated the importance of the internal working model in social behaviour and parenting at the expense of other factors

who was the strange situation developed by

mary ainsworth and silvia Bell

what was the aim of the strange situation

the aim was to be able to observe key attachment behaviours as a means of assessing the quality of a baby’s attachment to a caregiver

procedure of strange situation

• is a controlled observation procedure designed to measure the security of attachment a baby displays towards a caregiver

• it takes place in a room with quite controlled conditions (i.e. a laboratory) with a two way mirror and/or cameras through which psychologists can observe the baby’s behaviour

the behaviours used to judge the attachment included :

• proximity-seeking = a baby with a good quality attachment will stay fairly close to a caregiver

• exploration and secure-base behaviour = good attachment enables a baby to feel confident to explore ,using their caregiver as a secure base i.e. a point of contact that will make them feel safe

• stranger anxiety = one of the signs of becoming closely attached is a display of anxiety when a stranger approaches

• separation anxiety = another sign of becoming attached is to protest at separation from the caregiver

• response to reunion = babies who are securely attached greet the caregiver’s return with pleasure and seek comfort

the different episodes of the procedure of the strange situation

each episode lasts 3 minutes

findings of the strange situation

Ainsworth et al (1978) found that there were distinct patterns in the way that babies behaved, they identified three main types of attachment :

• secure attachment (type B) = these babies explore happily but regularly go back to their caregiver (proximity-seeking and secure-base behaviour). They usually show moderate separation distress and moderate stranger anxiety - securely attached babies require and accept comfort from the caregiver in the reunion stage

• insecure-avoidant attachment (Type A) = these babes explore freely but do not seek proximity or show secure-base behaviour. They show little or no reaction when their caregiver leaves and little stranger anxiety - they make little effort to make contact when the caregiver returns and may even avoid such contact

• insecure-resistant attachment ( Type C) = these babies seek greater proximity than others and so explore less - they show high levels of stranger and separation distress but they resist comfort when reunited with their caregiver

evaluation of strange situation

• good predictive validity - counterpoint

• good reliability

• the test may be culture bound

evaluation of strange situation : good predictive validity

P = one strength of the strange situation is that its outcome predicts a number of aspects of the baby’s later development

E = a large body of research has shown that babies and toddlers assessed as Type B( secure) tend to have better outcomes than others , both in later childhood and in adulthood

In childhood this includes better achievement in school and less involvement in bullying (Mccormick et al 2016, kokkinos 2007)

securely attached babies also tend to go on to have better mental health in adulthood (Ward et al 2006) - those babies assessed as having insecure-resistant attachment and those not falling into types A, B or C tend to have the worst outcomes

C = this suggests that the strange situation measures something real and meaningful in a baby’s development

evaluation of strange situation : counterpoint to good predictive validity

P = the strange situation clearly measures something important that is associated with later development - however not all psychologists believe this something is attachment

E = e.g. jerome kagan (1982) suggested that genetically influenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment behaviour in the strange situation and later development

C = this means that the strange situation may not actually measure attachment

evaluation of strange situation : good reliability

P = a strength of the strange situation is it has good inter-rater reliability

E = johanna bick et al (2012) tested inter-rater reliability for the strange situation for a team of trained observers and found agreement on attachment type in 94% of cases

This high level of reliability may be because the procedure takes place under controlled conditions and because behaviours ( such as proximity-seeking and stranger anxiety) involve large movements and are therefore easy to observe e.g. anxious babies cry and crawl away from strangers

E = this means that we can be confident that attachment type as assessed by the strange situation does not depend on subjective judgements

evaluation of strange situation : the test may be culture-bound

P = one limitation of the strange situation is that it may not be valid measure of attachment in different cultural contexts

E = the strange situation was developed in Britain and the US - it may be culture bond, only valid for use in certain cultures ( in this case Europe and USA)

one reason for this is that babies have different experiences in different cultures and these experiences may affect their responses to the strange situation e.g. Japanese study by keiko takahashi (1986) babies displayed very high levels of separation anxiety and so a disproportionate number were classified as insecure-resistant

Takahashi suggests that this anxiety response was not due to high rates of attachment insecurity but to the unusual nature of the experience in japan where mother-baby separation is very rare

C = this means that it is very difficult to know what the strange situation is measuring when used outside Europe and the US

studies of cultural variations

• van IJzendoorn and kroonenberg’s research

• an italian study

• a korean study

• conclusions of both these studies

what did IJzendoorn and kroonenberg do

conducted a study to look at the proportions of secure , insecure -avoidant and insecure -resistant attachments across a range of countries to assess cultural variation

They also look at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture

procedure of IJzendoorn and kroonenberg research

• the researchers located 32 studies of attachment where the strange situation had been used to investigate the proportions of babies with different attachment types

• these were conducted in 8 countries - 15 were in the US - Overall the studies yielded results for 1,990 children

• the data for these 32 studies was meta analysed - this means that the results of the studies were combined and analysed together , weighting each study for its sample size

findings of IJzendoorn and kroonenberg’s research

• there was a wide variation between the proportions or attachment types in different studies

• in all countries secure attachment was the most common classification - however the proportion varied from 75% in britain to 50% in china

• 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 sample from china, japan and israel where rates were above 25% ( and where rates of insecure-avoidant attachment were reduced)

• variations between result of studies within the same country were actually 150% greater than those between countries - in the US for example, one study found only 46% securely attached compared to one sample as high as 90%