Studied by 1 person
Attachment
a strong, enduring, emotional and reciprocal bond between two people, especially an infant and caregiver, characterised by a desire to maintain proximity.
A two way emotional relationship in which people depend on each other for their sense of security
A strong and reciprocal relationship between two people e.g. a caregiver and an infant
A long-enduring, emotionally meaningful tie to a particular individual
The first attachment we have is usually with our Primary Care-Giver, although we do continue to form attachments throughout life
Maccoby (1980)- behaviours of attachment
Attachment behaviour | Definition |
Seeking proximity | wanting to be near each other |
Distress if separated | both the infant and caregiver feel distressed when separated Pleasure when reunited: both the infant and caregiver are joyful to be reunited with each other |
General orientation and secure base behaviour | the infant is generally always aware of the caregiver and makes frequent contact. |
Why is forming an attachment important?
Infancy is the period of a child's life before speech begins. One of the key interactions between caregivers and infants is their non-verbal communication. Such interactions may form the basis of attachment between an infant and caregiver. It is the manner in which each responds to the other that determines the form of attachment. The more sensitive each is to others signals, the deeper the relationship.
Observational research
Observational research of infants was conducted by Meltxoff and Moore (1997), and they notes instances of certain behaviours
Method used by Meltxoff and Moore (1997)
Controlled observation
Selected four different stimuli (three different faces plus a hand gesture) and observed the behaviour of infants in response.
To record observations an observer watched videotapes of the infants behaviour in real time, slow motion and frame by frame if necessary
The video was then judged by independent observers who had no knowledge of what the observer had just seen
Each observer was asked to note all instances of infant tongue protrusions and head movements using these behaviour categories: mouth opening, termination of mouth opening, tongue profusion and termination of tongue profusion
Mouth opening= abrupts jaw drop opening the mouth across entire extent of lips
Termination of mouth opening= return of lips to their closed resting position (lips closed and touching across entire extent or there might be a small crack)
Tongue profusion= clear forward thrust of tongue such that the tongue tipped across the back of the lower lip
Termination of tongue profusion= reaction tip of tongue behind the back edge of the lower lip
Findings from Meltxoff and Moore (1997)
Each observer scored the tapes twice so that both intra-observer and inter-observer reliability could be calculated. All scores were greater than 92
Alert phases
From birth babies signal when they are ready to interact
Reciprocity
i.e. each person’s interactions affect the other.
Babies have ‘alert phases’ and signal that they are ready for interaction. Mothers respond 2/3 of the time
From three months interaction is frequent and involves close attention to each others facial expression and verbal signals
Interaction is reciprocal when each person responds to the other and elicits a response from them
The baby also takes on an active role
Mother and baby take turns in initiating interactions
Brazelton (1975) describes this as a ‘dance’ as they respond to each others moves like a couples dance
Interactional synchrony
i.e. they occur together
Two people are said to be synchronised when they carry out the same act at the same time.
Takes place when mother and babies actions and emotions mirror each other
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) observed this in infants aged 2 weeks. Adults displayed one of three facial expressions or gestures. Baby copied.
Isabella (1989) observed 30 mothers and infants. High levels of synchrony associated with better quality attachment
AO3 EVALUATION: care-giver infant interaction
Well controlled procedures: Controlled conditions can be replicated easily, this increases reliability which suggest internal and external validity. In the care-giver infant reaction there were well controlled procedures filmed at multiple angles. Babies don't care they are being observed so therefore there is good validity. However, some argue a lack of mundane realism in a highly controlled environment (external validity). Although, because infants are unaware there are no demand characteristics
It’s hard to know what is happening: we do not know if infant imitation is conscious and deliberate. Assumptions may be made which decreases validity. Feldman (2012), synchrony research doesn't tell us the actual purpose. May be helpful for building relationships, empath and moral development.
Social sensitivity: Research into early caregiver-infant interaction has practical applications in parenting skills training. For example, Rebecca Crotwell et al (2013) found that a 10-minute parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) improved interactional synchrony in 20 low-income mothers and their pre-school children. On the other hand, research into caregiver-infant interaction is socially sensitive because it can be used to argue that when a mother returns to work soon after having a baby this may risk damaging the baby’s development. But the cost is outweighed by the benefit of research on our knowledge of child behaviours.
Practical issues: cannot control the behaviour of a young infant and might have to wait for a period of time for when you can properly observe them. As result, fewer observations of infants are done and for a shorter period of time
Practical application: draws attention to the important behaviours needed in the development of an infant. The research into caregiver-infant interaction encourages mothers to engage in social interaction and to respond to the behaviours of the child in an appropriate and timely manner. It is pointed to the importance of these interactions for the benefit of a child's development in areas such as empathy and language.
What are the stages of attachment?
Proposed by Schaffer and Emerson
Stage one: The asocial stage
Stage two: Indiscriminate attachment
Stage three: specific attachment
Stage four: multiple attachments
Asocial stage (stage 1)
birth-2 months
Very young infants are asocial in that many kinds of stimuli, both social and non social, produce a favourable reaction such as a smile. Very few protest
Indiscriminate attachment (stage 2)
2-7 months
Infants indiscriminately enjoy human company. They get upset when an individual ceases to interact with them. From 3 months they smile at more familiar faces and are comforted by a regular caregiver. No stranger anxiety
Specific attachment (stage 3)
7 months +
Expresses protest when separated from one particular individual. They attempt to stay close to the person and share wariness of strangers (stranger anxiety)
Multiple attachments (stage 4)
By 1 year
Children begin to attach to others. By 18 months the majority of infant have formed multiple attachments
Procedure of Schaffer and Emerson’s Glasgow study (1964)
Participants= 60 infants from working class homes in Glasgow
Beginning of the study infants ages ranged from 5-23 weeks
They were studied for 1 year
Mothers were visited every four weeks- they reported their infants response to separation in seven everyday situations e.g. being left alone in a room
Mother asked to describe the intensity of any protest (full-blooded cry-whimper). This was rated on a 4-point scale
Mother was asked to say to whom the protest was directed
Stranger anxiety was measured by assessing the infant's response to the interviewer
Findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s Glasgow study (1964)
Four distinct stages were found in the development of attachment behaviour
By 32 weeks, 60% of infants had formed a special attachment
By 32 weeks, 57% of infants had formed an attachment to the mother
By 36 weeks, 73% of infants were showing fear of strangers
Fathers were the first object of attachment for 3% infants
Conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s Glasgow study (1964)
Babies develop attachment through a series of fixed stages
Attachments were formed with those who responded accurately to the baby's signals. Not the person they spent more time with. Schaffer and Emerson called this sensitive responsiveness
Intensely attached infants had mothers who responded quickly to their demands and interacted with their child. Infants who were weakly attached had mothers who failed to interact
AO3 EVALUATION: research into the development of attachment
Small ethnocentric sample- Schaffer and Emerson based their sample on a large-scale study with some good design features. On the other hand, they only looked at one sample which had unique features culturally and historically. In addition their limited / biassed sample- same city, same social class- makes it hard to generalise.
Poor evidence for the asocial stage - one limitation of Schaffer and Emerson’s stages is the validity of the measures they used to assess attachment in the asocial stage. Young babies have poor-coordination and are fairly immobile. If babies less than two months old felt anxiety in everyday situations they might have displayed this in quite subtle, hard-to observe ways. This made it difficult for mothers to observe and report back to researchers on signs of anxiety and attachment in this age group. This means that the babies may actually be quite social but because of flawed methods, they appear to be asocial
Culture bias- The research suggests that normally, single attachments must come before multiple attachments. In individualist cultures (such as Britain and the US), each person in the society is primarily concerned with their own needs of their immediate family group. In contrast, collectivist cultures are more focused on the needs of the group rather than the individuals, with people sharing things such as possessions and childcare. It follows that we would expect multiple attachments (stage 4) to be more common in collectivist societies, and perhaps come before the other stages. This suggests that Schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachment only apply to individualist cultures
Social desirability bias- mothers may lie about their infant responses e.g. crying, as to not be perceived as bad mothers or uncaring towards their infants. Therefore, reducing the validity of the theory
Real world application- Schaffer and Emerson's stages can be applied in daycare settings, where babies are cared for outside of their home by a non-family adult. In the asocial stage and indiscriminate attachment steps daycare is likely to be straightforward as babies can be comforted by any skilled adult. However, Schaffer and Emersons research tell us that day care, especially starting daycare with an unfamiliar adult, may be problematic during the specific attachment stage. This means that parents' use of day care can be planned using these stages.
Assessing the validity of Schaffer and Emerson’s Glasgow study (1964)
Population validity- may not be able to generalise data collected from babies in Glasgow to other babies in different countries/regions
Temporal validity- research was done in 1964 so may not be as relevant to modern times as babies have developed significantly
Ecological validity- ecological validity is high because the babies are within their own homes during the research, resulting in high mundane realism
Good External validity- Most of the observations (though not stranger anxiety) were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to the researchers. The alternative would have been to have researchers present to record observations. This might have distracted the babies or made them feel more anxious. This means it is highly likely that the participants behaved naturally while being observed
The role of the father
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that the majority of babies become 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 the first sole object of attachment with the mother. Within a few weeks or months they then formed secondary attachments to other family members, including the father. In 75% of infants studied, an attachment was formed with the father by the age of 18 months. This was indicated by the fact that the infants protested when their father walked away, a sign of attachment.
key features of the role of the father
Many researchers have seen the father as less of a caregiver and more as a playmate. This is because father's play is often more physical, unpredictable and exciting than mothers.
Mothers have often been seen to show more sensitive responsiveness. But males can also quickly develop this ability when taking on the role of main care provider.
Distinctive role of the father
A research question is whether attachment to fathers holds some specific value in a child's development and, if so, whether it plays a different role in a child's development from attachment to the mother. Klaus Grossmann et al (2002) carried out a longitudinal study where baby attachments were studied until they were teens. The researchers looked at both parents' behaviour and its relationship to the quality of their baby’s later attachments to other people. Quality of a baby’s attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to attachments in adolescence. This suggests that attachment to fathers is less important than attachment to mothers.
Quality of play
Quality of play with infants is related to children's attachment in adolescence.
Grossmann et al (2002), during their longitudinal study, found that the quality of the fathers play with babies was related to the quality of adolescence attachments. This suggest that fathers have a different role from mothers- one is more to do with play and stimulation, and less to do with emotional development
Geiger (1996) found that the way fathers play with their children is more exciting and pleasurable than mothers. The mum is associated with care and nurturing the child whereas the dad is more about fun and playing with the child. This supports the view of the father as a playmate.
Level of responsiveness
The key to attachment is the level of responsiveness, not the gender of the parent. Research shows that the father in a single parent family is more likely to adopt the traditional maternal role. Lamb (1997) discovered that once a father becomes the main care provider, he quickly develops more sensitivity towards his children’s needs, suggesting sensitive responsiveness isn’t a biological ability limited to women. This demonstrates that there is flexibility in the role of the father and how men can respond to the different needs of their children.
Father attachment implications
Children with secure attachments to their fathers go on to have better relationships with peers and less problem behaviour generally.
Children with secure attachments to their fathers are better able to regulate their emotions.
Those children who grow up without the presence of a father have been found to do less well at school and have higher levels of risk-taking and aggression, especially in boys, suggesting that fathers can help prevent negative developmental outcomes.
AO3 EVALUATION: The role of the father
Real world application/Economic implications- Parents and prospective parents sometimes agonise over decisions like who should take on the primary caregiver role. For some this can even mean worrying about whether to have children at all. Mothers may feel pressured to stay at home because of stereotypical views of mothers and fathers roles. Equally, fathers may be pressured to focus on work rather than parenting. In some families this may not economically be the best solution. Research into the role of the father can be used to offer reassuring advice to parents. For example, heterosexual parents can be informed that fathers are quite capable of becoming primary attachment figures. Also lesbian-parent and single-mother families can be informed that not having a father around does not affect a child’s development
Conflicting evidence- different researchers are interested in different research quotes e.g. fathers as secondary attachment figures (Grossmann et al), involving play and stimulation, vs fathers as primary attachment figures. Those interested in fathers as primary attachment figures see fathers as adopting a ‘maternal role’. If fathers have a distinctive and important role, we would expect that children growing up in single-mother and lesbian-parent families would turn out differently from those in two-parent heterosexual families. Whereas, those interested in fathers as a secondary attachment tend to see fathers as acting differently from mothers. This means that the question as to whether fathers have a distinctive role remains unanswered.
Social sensitivity- A limitation of the role of the father is that it is socially sensitive. Grossmann’s research implies that mothers are more important in attachment, however, this may be due simply to tradition. It may also be biologically explained as female hormones result in a more nurturing personality and therefore women are predisposed to being primary attachment figures. This suggests that the majority of primary caregivers may be female due to predisposed biological characteristics. Therefore, research into the role of the father implies that women are biologically determined to be the infants primary caregiver, this is socially sensitive as it may be used to prevent women returning to work after having a child, having social and economic implications. In addition, research into the role of the father is also socially sensitive in the fact that it suggests that children without a father might be put at a disadvantage due to particular child rearing practices. Grossman found fathers had a less important role in children's development. However, other research has suggested that children with single sex or same sex parents do not develop differently to those in a two parents heterosexual family
Imprinting
an innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the mother which takes place during a specific time in development, probably the first few hours after birth/hatching. If it doesn't happen at this time it will probably not happen
Lorenz (1935) animal study procedure- geese
Lorenz set up a classical experiment in which he randomly divided a large clutch of goose eggs. Half the eggs were 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
Lorenz (1935) findings
The incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere, whereas the control group hatched in the presence of their mother and 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, where bird species that are mobile from birth attach to and follow the first moving object they see. Lorenz identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place. Depending on the species this can be as brief as a few hours after hatching (or birth). If imprinting does not occur within that time, Lorenz found that the chicks did not attach themselves to a mother figure
Conflicting evidence to Lorenz’s animal study
Some of Lorenz’s conclusions have been questioned. For example, Guiton et al 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. Lorenz was interested in imprinting birds. Although some of his findings have influenced our understanding of human development, there is a problem generalising from findings on birds to humans. For example, mammalian mothers show more emotional attachment to young than do birds.
Sluckin (1966) questioned whether there actually was a critical period, a set time in which imprinting must occur or it never would do so. Performing a replication of Lorenz’s research, but using ducklings instead of goslings, he successfully imprinted them onto himself, but kept one duckling in isolation well beyond (up to five days), Lorenz’s reported critical period. He found it was still possible to imprint this youngster and concluded that the critical period was actually a sensitive period, a time period best for imprinting to perform, but one beyond which attachments could still be formed.
AO3 EVALUATION: Lorenz animal study (1935)
Research support- Lucia Regolin and Giorgio Vallortigara (1995) supports Lorenz’s ideas of imprinting. Chicks were exposed to simple shape combinations that moved, such as a triangle with a rectangle in front. A range of shape combinations were then moved in front of them and they followed the original most closely. This supports the view that young animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object present in the critical window of development, as predicted by Lorenz
Generalisability- limitation is the ability to generalise findings and conclusions from birds to humans. The mammalian attachment system is quite different and more complex than that in birds. For example, in mammals attachment is a two-way process, so it is not just the young who become attached to their mothers, but also the mammalian mothers show an emotional attachment to their young. This means that it is probably not appropriate to generalise Lorenz’s ideas to humans
Criticisms of imprinting- for many years the accepted view of imprinting was that it was an irreversible process, where the object of encounter was somehow stamped permanently on the nervous system. Now, it is understood that imprinting is a more ‘plastic and forgiving mechanism’ . For example, Guitons (1996) study of chickens mating with rubber gloves. This suggests that imprinting may not, after all, be so very different from any kind of learning. Learning can also take place rapidly, with little conscious effort and is also fairly reversible.
Harlow (1959) animal study procedure- monkeys
Harlow tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother. In one experiment he reared 16 baby monkeys with two wire model ‘mothers’. In one condition milk was dispensed by the plain wire mother (food) whereas in the second condition, the milk was dispensed by a cloth covered mother (contact comfort).
Harlow (1959) findings
The baby monkeys cuddled the cloth covered mother in preference to the plain wire mother and sought comfort from the cloth one when frightened (e.g. by a noisy mechanical teddy bear) regardless of which mother dispensed milk. This showed that ‘contact comfort’ was of more importance to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour
Harlow (1959) long lasting effects on attachment
Harlow and colleagues followed the monkeys who had been deprived of a ‘real’ mother into adulthood to see if this early maternal deprivation had a permanent effect. The researchers found severe consequences. The monkeys reared with cloth-covered mothers did not develop normal social behaviour. These deprived monkeys were more aggressive and less sociable than other monkeys and they bred less often than is typical for monkeys, being unskilled at mating. When they became mothers, some of the deprived monkeys neglected their young and others attacked their children, even killing them in some cases.
AO3 EVALUATION: Harlow animal study (1959)
Real world application- Harlow’s findings had an influential effect on psychologists' understanding of human-infant attachment. Most importantly, Harlow showed that attachment does not develop as the result of being fed by a mother figure but as a result of contact comfort. Harlow also showed the importance of the quality of early relationships for later social development. The insight from Harlow’s research has had important applications in a range of practical contexts. For example, it has helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse and so intervene to prevent it.
Social sensitivity/ethical issues- The study created lasting emotional harm as the monkeys later found it difficult to form relationships with their peers. On the other hand, the experiment can be justified in terms of the significant effect it has had on our understanding of the processes of attachment and research derived from this study has been used to offer better care for human and (primate) infants. Therefore it could be argued that the benefits outweigh the costs to the animals involved in the study. Such criticisms do not challenged the findings of the research but are important in monitoring what counts as good science
Generalisability- a limitation is the ability to generalise findings from monkeys to humans. Monkeys are much more similar to humans than Lorenz’s birds, and all mammals share some common attachment behaviours. However, the human brain and human behaviour is still more complex than that of monkeys. This means that it may not be appropriate to generalise Harlow’s findings to humans
Confounding variables- The two stimulus objects varied in more ways than the soft cloth.The two heads were also different, so the monkeys may have preferred the more better looking monkey.This means the study lacks internal validity.
The learning theory of attachment
Idea that infants form attachments through classical and operant conditioning. John Dollard and Neal Miller (1950) proposed the caregiver infant attachment can be explained by learning theory. The approach is sometimes referred to as ‘cupboard love’ because it emphasises the importance of the attachment figure as a provider of food
Behaviourist assumptions
This approach is only interested in studying behaviour that can be observed and measured.
Behaviourists tried to maintain more control in their studies so relied more on lab experiments to conduct their research.
They believed that all species learn in a similar way, so in behaviourist research animals were often substituted for humans.
Two important forms of learning were identified by behaviourists: Classical and Operant conditioning.
Classical conditioning attachment
Involves learning to associate two stimuli together so that we begin to respond to one in the same way as we already respond to the other. In the case of attachment, food serves as an unconditioned stimulus. Being fed gives us pleasure, it is an unconditioned response. A caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus. However, when the caregiver provides food over time they become associated with food. When the baby then sees this person there is an expectation of food. The neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus. Once conditioning has taken place, the sight of the caregiver provides a conditioned response of pleasure. This conditioned pleasure response is love i.e. an attachment is formed and the caregiver becomes an attachment figure
Operant conditioning in attachment
Involves learning from the consequence of behaviour. If behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, that behaviour is likely to be repeated again. The behaviour is reinforced. If a behaviour produces an unpleasant consequence (punishment) it is less likely to be repeated. Operant conditioning can explain why babies cry for comfort- an important behaviour in building attachment. Crying leads to a response from the caregiver, for example feeding. As long as the caregiver provides the correct response, crying is reinforced. The baby then directs crying or comfort towards the caregiver who responds with contact comfort behaviour. Reinforcement is a two way process. At the same time the baby is reinforced for crying, the caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops- escaping from something unpleasant is reinforcing. This interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment.
Positive reinforcement
presenting something good = a positive outcome
Negative reinforcement
taking away something bad = a positive outcome.
Attachment as a secondary drive
As well as conditioning, learning theory draws on the concept of drive reduction. Hunger can be thought of as a primary drive- it is an innate, biological motivator, and we are motivated to eat in order to reduce the hunger drive. Robert Sears et al (1957) suggested that, as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them. Attachment is thus a secondary drive learned by association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive
AO3 EVALUATION: Learning theory of attachment
Reductionist- As always the behaviourist explanation is reductionist because it takes a complex human behaviour and tries to explain it in the simplest terms possible. It does not consider any internal processes or seek to explain the emotional nature of attachments simply how they arise as behaviours. The behaviourist theories of attachments are sometimes referred to as cupboard love theories because of their emphasis on food and feeding. In the Tronick study a mother firstly engages with the child, and then pulls a still face. The baby tries to re-engage the mother, and when they fail, they become upset and distressed. When the mother begins to communicate again, the baby returns to a happy state. This shows the importance of interactional synchrony in building attachment, it is not all about food. Humans more complex and factors such as social and emotional connection are clearly involved in the formations of attachment. Harlow supports this idea too.
Counter evidence from Animal Studies- One limitation of learning theory explanations for attachment is lack of support from studies conducted on animals. For example, Lorenz geese imprinted on the first moving object that they saw, regardless of whether this object was associated with food. Also, in Haslow’s research with monkeys there is no support for the importance of food. When given a choice, the monkeys displayed attachment behaviour towards a soft surrogate ‘mother’ (contact comfort) in preference to the wire one which provided milk. This shows that factors other than association with food are important in the formation of attachments
Counter evidence from studies on humans- A further limitation of learning theory is the lack of support from studies of human babies. For example, Schaffer and Emrson (1964) found that babies tended to form their main attachment to their mother, regardless of whether she was the one who usually fed them. In another study, Russell Isabella et al (1989) found that high levels of interactional synchrony predicted the quality of attachment. These factors are not related. This again shows that factors other than association with food are important in the formation of attachments
Some conditioning may be involved- One strength of learning theory is that elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of attachment. It seems unlikely that association with food plays a central role in attachment, but conditioning may still play a role. For example, a baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult, and this may influence the baby's choice of their main attachment figure. This means that learning theory may still be useful in understanding the development of attachments
Learning theory vs evolutionary theory
Learning Theory | Evolutionary Theory |
Infants have no innate tendency to form attachments | The tendency to form attachments is innate |
They learn attachments because of food | This tendency is present in both infants and mothers |
Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment
Bowlby put forward an important theory of attachment, based on the work of the ethologists, such as Lorenz and Harlow
He saw humans as being just like other animals – we need an innate tendency to form attachments with a caregiver. An infant who is not well attached is less likely to be cared for. It is important that attachments are reciprocal.
This tendency gives us an adaptive advantage ie., makes it more likely that we will survive.
He adopted the idea of a CRITICAL PERIOD from ethologists like Lorenz, and applied this to his explanation of how human infants form their attachments.
Adaptive behaviours
Attachments are Adaptive.
This means they give our species an ‘adaptive advantage’, making us more likely to survive.
This is because if an infant has an attachment to a caregiver, they are kept safe, given food, and kept warm.
Social releasers
Babies have Social Releasers, which ‘unlock’ the innate tendency of adults to care for them.
These Social releasers are both:
Physical – the typical ‘baby face’ features and body proportions
Behavioural – e.g. crying, cooing
Critical period suggested by Bowlby
Babies have to form an attachment with their caregiver during a Critical Period.
This is between birth and 2½ years old. Bowlby said that if this didn’t happen, the child would be damaged for life – socially, emotionally, intellectually, and physically
Monotropy
Bowlby believed that infants form one very special attachment with their mother
This special, intense attachment is called Monotropy.
If the mother isn’t available, the infant could bond with another ever-present, adult, mother-substitute
Internal working model
Through the monotropic attachment, the infants would form an Internal Working Model.
This is a special mental schema for relationships.
All the child’s future adult relationships will be based on this.
The continuity hypothesis suggests deprivation caused by prolonged separations from the mother limits the ability of the infant to form an effective internal working model, leading to unsuccessful childhood and adult relationships and issues with their parenting skills.
Consequences of deprivation
Delinquency: Due to disrupted social development, it forms a template (schema) for future behaviour that is often outside acceptable norms, such as relationships called an internal working model. petty crime.
Affection less psychopathy: Due to disrupted emotional development, children are unable to show caring behaviour to others or empathy for other people's feelings and have little guilt for their harmful actions.
Low IQ: Due to disrupted intellectual development, cognitive abilities are lower than peers.
AO3 EVALUATION: Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment
Research support- Bowlby (1944) supported his theory with the Forty-Four Thieves study, 44 child thieves and a control group of 44 emotionally disturbed non-thieves were interviewed to assess affection less psychopathy and parents were asked about maternal deprivation during the critical period. It was found 14 thieves matched the criteria for affection less psychopathy compared to none of the control group. 12 of the thieves had experienced prolonged separation compared to only two of the control group. This suggests a link between maternal deprivation and delinquency.
Real life application- Bowlby's work on attachment led to significant positive changes to policies related to child welfare, such as visiting time for mothers in hospitals, the ratio of carers and infants at nursery school and the length of maternity leave. While this has improved child welfare it has also impacted the economy as nursery places are now more expensive. Social sensitivity should also be considered as the focus on maternity rather than paternity leave may have resulted in an increase in the gender pay gap, with women missing opportunities for development and promotion.
Socially sensitive- Monotropy may exaggerate the importance of the mother as a primary caregiver, putting pressure on mothers to stay home and look after their children, and fathers to go to work, this may not be the best situation economically for some families. In addition, this focus on the mother may be gender biassed (alpha bias), underestimating the role of the father and other attachment figures. Shaffer's work shows children quickly move on from one specific attachment, with 87% of infants having multiple attachments at 18 months. Other research indicates important roles for the father in early attachment, such as encouraging risk taking, developing socialisation and even taking on the sensitive responsive role when acting as the primary caregiver.
Support for social releasers- There is clear evidence that cute behaviours (small chin and nose, big eyes) are designed to elicit interaction from caregivers. Berry Brazelton et al (1975) observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers. The researchers then instruct the baby's primary attachment figures to ignore their baby's social releasers. Babies, who were previously shown to be normally responsive), became increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and lay motionless. This illustrates the role of social releasers in emotional development and suggests that they are important in the process of attachment development.
Support for internal working model- The idea of the internal working model predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed from one generation to the next. Bailey et al (2007) assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their one year old babies. The researchers measure the mothers attachment to their own primary attachment figures (parents). Researchers also assessed the attachment quality of the babies. Found that mothers with poor attachment to their own primary attachment figures were more likely to have poorly attached babies. This supports Bowlby’s 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.
Ainsworth’s Strange situation (1970) episodes/method
Episodes (about 3 mins duration) | Behaviour assessed | |
1 | Baby is encouraged to explore | Tests exploration and secure base behaviour |
2 | A stranger comes in, talks to the caregiver and approaches the baby | Tests stranger anxiety |
3 | The caregiver leaves the baby and stranger together | Tests separation and stranger anxiety |
4 | Caregiver returns and stranger leaves | Tests reunion behaviour and exploration/secure base |
5 | Caregiver leaves the baby alone | Tests separation anxiety |
6 | Stranger returns | Tests stranger anxiety |
7 | Caregiver returns and is reunited with the baby | Tests reunion behaviour |
Types of attachment proposed by Ainsworth
Insecure-avoidant
Insecure-resistant
Securely attached
Insecure-avoidant
Infant is willing to explore, had low stranger anxiety, were indifferent to anxiety and avoided contact when parents returned
Insecure-resistant
Infant unwilling to explore, had high stranger anxiety, were distressed at separation but sought and rejected contact when parent returned
Securely attached
Infant willing to explore, had high stranger anxiety, were easy to soothe and were enthusiastic at the return of their mother.
Result’s from Ainsworth’s attachment exp
Secure attachment (Type B) | Insecure attachment (Type A) | Insecure Resistant (Type C) | |
Willingness to explore | High | High | Low |
Stranger anxiety | Moderate | Low | High |
Separation anxiety | Some easy to soothe | Indifferent | Distressed |
Behaviour at reunion with caregiver | Enthusiastic | Avoids contact | Seeks and rejects |
Percentage of infants in this category (US babies) | 66% | 22% | 12% |
Conclusions from Ainsworth’s attachment exp
Attachment differences depended upon the sensitivity of the mother (i.e. how well the mother could read her infant’s feelings and moods).
Sensitive mothers generally had infants who were securely attached.
Less sensitive and less responsive mothers (i.e. those who ignored their infants or were impatient with them) had babies who were more likely to be insecurely attached.
A baby’s attachment does seem to be affected to some extent by the quality and sensitivity of the caregiver.
AO3 EVALUATION: Ainsworth’s strange situation
Good predictive validity- a strength is there is a predictive validity of attachment types in the Strange Situation. Attachment type predicts later development. For example, secure babies typically have greater success at school and more lasting romantic relationships. In contrast, insecure-resistant attachment is associated with the worst outcomes e.g. bullying (Kokkino) and adult mental health problems (Ward et al). This means that there is evidence for the validity of the concept because it can explain future outcomes.
Good reliability- A further strength is that the Strange Situation shows very good inter-rater reliability. Different observers watching the same children generally agree on attachment type. Bick et al 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 means that we can be confident that the attachment type of an infant identified in the Strange Situation does not just depend on who is observing them, hence its strong reliability.
Test is culture bound- A limitation is that the Strange Situation may be a culture-bound test. The test might not have the same meaning in countries outside Western Europe and the USA. Cultural differences in children’s experiences mean they respond differently. Also, caregivers from different cultures behave differently. Takahashi notes that Japanese mothers are rarely separated from infants thus the infants show high levels of anxiety. This means that the Strange Situation may not be a valid test of attachment across a variety of cultures.
Confounding variables- A further limitation is that temperament may be a confounding variable. Ainsworth assumed that the main influence on separation and stranger anxiety was the quality of the attachment. But Kagan suggests that temperament (the child’s genetically influenced personality) is a more important influence on behaviour in the Strange Situation. This means that it challenges the validity of the Strange Situation because its intention is to measure the quality of attachment, not the temperament of the child i.e. a confounding variable.
Cultural variations in attachment
Cultural variations= the ways in which different groups vary in terms of their social practices, and the effects these practices have on development and behaviour
Culture= refers to the rules, customs, morals and ways of interacting that bind together members of a society or some other collection of people. We learn these rules, costumes etc through the process of socialisation. Culture is not limited to a country, we have many subcultures within one country
Individualist vs collectivist cultures
western cultures (UK and the US) are classed as individualist cultures which value independence and the importance of the individual. In contrast, collectivist cultures emphasise the importance of the group or the collective, for example, Korea.
Van Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)
Wanted to look at proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries.
They also looked at differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture.
Van Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) Procedure
They conducted a meta-analysis (drawing together data from lots of different studies and analysis it to make conclusions) of the findings from 32 studies of attachment behaviour
Altogether the studies examined over 2000 strange situation classification in eight different countries
Researchers were interested in whether inter-cultural differences exist differences between different countries/cultures) and also whether there are intra-cultural differences (findings from studies conducted within the same culture)
Van Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) Findings
Percentage of children displaying attachment types in 8 countries
Researchers found that the difference were small variations between cultures
Secure attachment was the most common classification in every country
Insecure-avoidant attachment was the next most common in every country except Israel and Japan
They found that the variation within cultures was 1.5x greater than the variation between cultures
Country | No. of studies | Type B: Secure | Type A: insecure avoidant | Type c: insecure resistant |
West Germany | 3 | 57 | 35 | 8 |
GB | 1 | 75 | 22 | 3 |
Netherlands | 4 | 67 | 26 | 7 |
Sweden | 1 | 74 | 22 | 4 |
Israel | 2 | 64 | 7 | 29 |
Japan | 2 | 68 | 5 | 27 |
China | 1 | 50 | 25 | 25 |
US | 18 | 65 | 21 | 14 |
Van Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) Conclusions
Global patterns across cultures appear to be similar to that found in the US
Secure attachment is the ‘norm’, supporting Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal and this type is the universal norm.
However, the research also clearly shows that cultural practices have an influence on attachment type.
These findings support the view that attachment is an innate process
AO3 EVALUATION: Cultural variations in attachment
Use of indigenous researchers- Indigenous psychologists are those from the same cultural background as the participants. fOR example, van Usendoom and Kroonenberg included research by a German team (Grossmann et al 1981) and Keiko Takahasi (1986) who is Japanese. This kind of research means that many of the potential problems in cross-cultural research can be avoided, such as researchers' misunderstandings of the language used by participants or having difficulty communicating instructions to them. Difficulties can also include bias because of one nation's stereotypes of another. This means there is an excellent chance that researchers and participants communicated successfully- enhancing the validity of the data collected.
Confounding variables- Studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when they are compared in reviews or meta-analyses. Sample characteristics such as poverty, social class and urban/rural makeup can confound results as can the age of participants studied in different countries. Environmental variables might also differ between studies and confound results. For example, the size of the room and the availability of interesting toys there- babies might appear to explore more in studies conducted in small rooms with attractive toys compared to large, bare rooms. Less visible proximity-seeking because of room size might make a child more likely to be classified as avoidant. This means that looking at attachment behaviour in different non-matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment
Imposed etic- A further limitation of cross-cultural research is in trying to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another. Cross-cultural psychology includes the ideas of emic (cultural uniqueness) and etic (cross-cultural universality). Imposed etic occur when we assume an idea or technique that works in one cultural context will work in another. An example of this in attachment research is in the use of babies' response to reunion with the caregiver in the Strange Situation. In Britain and the US, lack of affection on reunion may indicate an avoidant attachment. But in Germany such behaviour would be more likely interpreted as independence rather than insecurity. Therefore that part of the Strange Situation may not work in Germany. This means that the behaviours measured by the Strange Situation may not have the same meaning in different cultural contexts, and comparing them across cultures is meaningless.
Large samples- A strength of meta-analysis is that you can end up with very large samples. In van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis there was a total of nearly 2000 babies and their primary attachment figures. Even Simonelli et al’s study had large comparison groups from previous research, although their own samples were smaller. This is a strength because large samples increase internal validity by reducing the impact of biassed methodology or very unusual participants. This means that we can be reasonably confident in the validity of the findings of cross cultural attachment research.
Representation issues- A limitation is that the samples used may not be representative of cultures. In van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta-analysis made comparisons between countries not cultures. Within any country there are different cultures each with different child-rearing practices. For example, van Ijzendoorn and Sagi (2001) found attachment types in urban Tokyo in similar proportions to Western Studies. More rural samples over-represented insecure-resistant individuals. This means that comparisons between countries such as Italy or Korea may have little meaning. The particular characteristics (and thus caregiving styles) of the sample need to be specified.
Culture bias- A limitation is that the Strange Situation method may be biassed towards American/British culture. The Strange Situation was designed by an American researcher (Ainsworth) based on a British theory (Bowlby). This theory and assessment may not be applicable to other cultures. Trying to apply a theory or technique designed for one culture to another is known as imposed etic (etic means cultural universals) which disregards the notion of cultural emic (cultural uniqueness) This means that the idea that a lack of pleasure on reunion indicates insecure attachment is an imposed etic. In Germany this behaviour might be seen more as independence than avoidance and not a sign of insecurity.
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Deprivation in the contact of child development refers to the loss of emotional care that is normally provided by a primary caregiver.
Bowlby (1951,1953) proposed that prolonged deprivation would have long-term consequences in terms of emotional development.
Privation
Not having the opportunity to form a bond in the first instance
Maternal deprivation
A bond or attachment has been formed with the main caregiver but it has been disrupted for some reason
The value of maternal care
Bowlby believed it wasn’t enough to ensure a child was well fed and kept safe and warm. He believed infants and children needed a ‘warm, intimate and continuous relationship’ with a mother (or permanent mother substitute) to ensure continuing normal mental health.
He famously said that ‘mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health
Critical period in maternal deprivation
Bowlby believed that a young child who is denied such care may become emotionally disturbed, but only if this happens before the age of 2 ½ and if there is no substitute person available.
Bowlby also felt there was a continuing risk up to 5 years.
Deprivation however has the potential to cause long term harm, but not necessarily separation
Long term effects of maternal deprivation
Affectionless psychopathy
Anaclitic depression – involving appetite loss, sleeplessness, and impaired social and intellectual development
Deprivation dwarfism – physically underdeveloped due to emotional deprivation
Effects of maternal deprivation on development
Intellectual development- delayed intellectual development, abnormally low IQ
Emotional Development- Affectionless psychopathy, inability to experience guilt or strong emotions towards others. This prevents a person developing fulfilling relationships.
Bowlby’s 44 juvenile thieves study
Aim: Bowlby aimed to test his maternal deprivation hypothesis, in particular the effects of early separations and affectionless psychopathy
Method: Bowlby interviewed the children and their families, who attended a clinic where he worked. He compared the backgrounds of 44 juvenile thieves with the background of 44 other non-delinquent children
Findings: 14 of the thieves were diagnosed by Bowlby as having affection less psychopathy, the main symptom of which is lack of moral conscience. 12 of these had experienced separation for at least one week before the age of 5. Thus 86% of the affection less psychopaths (AP) had also experienced early separation. Only 4% of the control group had experienced early separations (none were AP)
Conclusion: Separation in early life led to long term ill effects, particularly adversely affecting emotional development. Bowlby concluded that there was a link between maternal deprivation and affection less psychopathy
AO3 EVALUATION: Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Data is retrospective- i.e. the children and their parents had to think back many years to the child’s younger days. This can produce inaccuracies (as you will appreciate being experts on the memory process)
Results are correlational- so we cannot prove cause and effect. Bowlby assumed that the early separation had caused the later disturbance, but many other factors could be responsible - poverty
Confounding variables- the thieves in the study may steal due to socio-economic situations, and not maternal deprivation like Bowlby thought. This is demonstrated by the fact that Bowlby did not explain why the two in the control had experienced separation had not become delinquent
Flawed evidence- One limitation of the theory of maternal deprivation is the poor quality of the evidence it is based on. Bowlby’s 44 thieves study is flawed because it was Bowlby himself who carried out both the family interviews and the assessments for affectionless psychopathy. This left him open to bias because he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy. Other sources of evidence were equally flawed. For example, Bowlby was also influenced by the findings of Goldfarb’s (1943) research on the development of deprived children in wartime orphanages. This study has problems with confounding variables because the children in Goldfarb’s study had experienced early trauma and institutional care as well as prolonged separation from their primary caregivers. This means that Bowlby’s original sources of evidence for maternal deprivation had serious flaws and would not be taken seriously as evidence is nowadays
Deprivation and privation- another limitation of maternal deprivation is his confusion between different types of early experience. Michael Rutter (1981) drew an important distinction between two types of early negative experience. Deprivation strictly refers to the loss of the primary figure after attachment has developed. On the other hand, privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place- this may take place when children are brought up in institutional care. Rutter pointed out that the severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be the result of privation. So, the children studied by Goldfard may actually have been ‘prived’ rather than deprived. Similarity, many of the children in the 44 thieves study had disrupted early lives and may never have formed strong attachments. This means that Bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effects of deprivation in children’s development
Critical vs sensitive periods- For Bowlby, damage was inevitable if a child had not formed an attachment in the first 2 ½ of life. Hence, this is a critical period. However, there is evidence to suggest that in many cases good quality aftercare can prevent most or all of this damage. For example, Jamilia Koluchova (1976) reported the case of the Czech twins. The twins experienced very severe physical and emotional abuse from the age of 18 months up until they were 7 years old. Although they were severely damaged emotionally by their experience, they received excellent care and by their teens they had recovered fully. This means that lasting harm is not inevitable even in cases of severe privation. The ‘critical period’ is therefore better seen as a ‘sensitive period’
Institutionalisation
the effects of institutional care. We are concerned with how time spent in an institution such as an orphanage can affect the development of children. The possible effects include social, mental and physical underdevelopment. Some of the effects may be irreversible.
History behind the Romanian orphan studies
In 1966, the Romanian government tried to boost the population of Romania by encouraging parents to have large families and also banning abortion. The consequence was that many babies could not be cared for by their families. When the regime collapsed in 1989, the western world became aware of the plight of orphans in institutional care in Romania. More than 100,000 orphans in 600 state-run orphanages. The children spent their days alone in cribs with very little stimulation- cognitive or emotional. They were malnourished and uncared for, many were adopted by western families
Rutter English Romanian adoptee study (2010)
Procedure:
165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain to test to what extent good care could make up for poor experiences in institutions.
Physical, cognitive and emotional development assessed at 4,6,11 and 15 years old.
Control group – 52 British children adopted around the same time.
Findings:
When first arrived in the UK half adoptees showed signs of mental retardation and most were severely undernourished.
At 11 yo the adopted children showed different rates of recovery that were related to their age of adoption.
Mean IQ for those adopted BEFORE 6 months – 102
Adopted between 6m – 2 yo = 86 IQ
Adopted after 2 yo = 77 IQ
Beckett et al (2010) found that these differences remained after two years.
Effects of institutionalisation
Disinhibited Attachment: equally friendly and affectionate to people they know well or who are strangers – this is unusual behaviour – 2 year olds usually show stranger anxiety. Rutter argues this is the result of adapting to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive period
Intellectual under functioning: most showed signs of retardation when they arrived in Britain. However, most of those adopted by 6 months old caught up with the control group by the age of 4. Suggesting that damage can be recovered if adopted before the age of 6 months.
AO3 EVALUATION: Romania orphanage studies
Real world application- Studying the Romanian orphans has improved psychologists' understanding of the effects of early institutional care and how to prevent the worst of these effects. This has led to improvements in the conditions experienced by looked-after children i.e. children growing up in the care system. For example, children's homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child. Instead, the children tend to have one or two ‘key workers’ who play a central role in their emotional care. Also, institutional care is now seen as an undesirable option for looked-after children. Considerable effects are made to accommodate such children in foster care or have them adopted instead. This means that children in institutional care have a chance to develop normal attachments and disinhibited attachment is avoided.
Fewer confounding variables- There were many orphan studies before the Romanian studies before the Romanian orphans became available to study (e.g. orphans studied during WW2). Many of the children studied in orphanages had experienced varying degrees of trauma, and it is difficult to disentangle the effects of neglect, physical abuse and bereavement from those of institutional care. However, the children from Romania orphanages had, in the main, been handed cover by loving parents who could not afford to keep them. This means that results were much less likely to be confounded by other negative early experiences (high internal validity)
COUNTERPOINT: there may have been other variables that might have affected infants who were left in institutional care for longer periods of time. For example, the older children’s low IQ may be due to a lack of stimulation in the orphanage and education. Other factors could be the lack of sanitation and food given to the children.
Social sensitivity- The Romanian orphan studies are socially sensitive because the results show that late-adopted children typically have poor developmental outcomes. Results have been published while the children have been growing up, meaning that their parents, teachers and anyone else who knew them might have lowered their expectations and treated the adopted children differently. On the other hand, much has been learned from the Romanian orphan studies that might benefit future institutionalised or potentially institutionalised children.
Longitudinal study- A strength of studying individuals over a long period of time (longitudinal study) is that we get lots of detailed information over a long period, as well as reducing the chance of participant variables as you are studying the same participants as they grow up. However, a limitation of this is that it takes much longer and is harder for psychologists to be taken seriously and for their work to be acknowledged as it was done so long ago.
Natural experiment- Rutter’s study was a natural experiment as he was observing the IV (age of adoption) as it occurred naturally. This is a strength as we get a more realistic understanding of attachment within the study. However, there may have been other variables affecting the outcome of the independent variable. For example, the adopted group may have been more socially skilled making them easier to place in adoptive families, this is something that the research would have been unable to control.
Influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships
The role of the internal working model:
Idea that we form templates for future relationships based on our relationships with our primary attachment figure
Quality is crucial
Loving start=loving relationships
Not too uninvolved or too emotionally close (Type A behaviour)
Nor too controlling and argumentative (type C)
Bad experiences of first attachments led to inappropriate behaviour towards friends and family
The continuity hypothesis
The idea that early relationships with caregivers predict later relationships in adulthood.
Hazan and Schafer (1987)
Aim:
The aim of the Hazan and Shavers experiment was to identify if early attachments could predict later relationships. Hazan and Shaver (1987) examined the application of attachment theory to adult romantic relationships and designed a 'love quiz'.
Procedure:
620 replies to ‘love quiz’ they put into a newspaper
Section 1: respondents current or most important relationship
Section 2: assessed general love experiences e.g. no. of partners
Section 3: assessed attachments type asking respondents to choose which of the three statements best describes their feelings
Findings:
56% respondents securely attached- reported good and longer lasting romance
25% insecure avoidant- revealed jealousy and fear of intimacy
19% insecure resistant
Conclusion:
Patterns of attachment behaviour are reflected in romantic relationships
Behaviours influenced by the internal working model
Relationships in childhood:
Attachment type is associated with the quality of peer relationships in childhood.
Securely attached – best quality childhood friendships
Insecurely attached – friendship difficulties
Bullying – Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998) – 196 children aged 7-11 from London
Secure children less likely to be involved in bullying
Insecure-avoidant most likely to be victims
Insecure resistant most likely to be bullies
Relationships in adulthood- parenting:
Internal working models also affect the child’s ability to parent their own child
We tend to base our parenting style on our internal working model.
Bailey et al – 99 mothers. Assessed using SS. Majority of women had the same attachment classification both to their own babies and their own mothers
Relationships in adulthood- romance:
McCarthy (1999)- 40 adult women assessed as infants to establish attachment type
Securely attach=best adult friendships and romantic relationships
Insecure-resistant - problems maintaining friendships
Insecure-avoidant – intimacy struggles
AO3 Evaluation: Influence of early attachment
Concurrent validity- results from Hazan and Shaver (1987) experiment are also reflected in Ainsowrth’s strange situation. The show the same proportions in results
Social desirability bias- participants might just want to appear as having good relationships rather than appearing to be isolated. Reducing the validity and accuracy of the data collected
Determinism- research into the influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships have a deterministic view on behaviour, as it suggests that very early experiences have a fixed effect on later relationships. However, Clarke and Clarke (1998) proposed that influence of early attachments is probabilistic, which suggests that people with bad quality early attachment are not doomed but thye have a higher risk of problems. Therefore, they believe that early attachment does not determine adult relationships but makes certain behaviour more likely.
Validity issues with retrospective studies- Most research on the link between early attachment and later development are not longitudinal (i.e. they don’t assess attachment in early life and then revisit the same person in later life). Instead, researchers usually ask adolescent or adult participants questions about their relationships with parents, and identify attachment type from this. The validity of questionnaires and interviews is limited because they depend on respondents being honest and having a realistic view of their own relationships and it relies on accurate recollections. In addition, it means that it is very hard to know whether what is being assessed is ealy attachment or in fact adult attachment. Therfore, the measures of early attachment used in most studies may be confounded with other factors, making them meaningless.
Research support- Reviews of studies linking attachment to later development (Fearon and Roisman 2017) have concluded that early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional well-being and attachment to own children. How strong the relationships is between early attachment type and later development. So whilst insecure-avoidant attachment seems to convey fairly mild disadvantages for any spect of development, disorganised attachment is strongly associated with later mental disorder. This means that secure attachment as a baby appears to convey advantages for future development while disorganised attachment rappers to seriously disadvantage children.
Note
Flashcard