attachment

Attachment

A close emotional bond between the child and the primary caregiver that binds them together over time, characterised by reciprocal affections, frequent interaction, a desire for proximity and selectivity.

Caregiver-infant interactions

Important interactions that are crucial for a babies social development.

Recipriocity: When each person responds to the other and elicits a response from them.(‘turn-taking) e.g baby smiling and caregiver responding w something eliciting baby tor eply.

Alert phases: Babies signal when they are ready for interaction e.g eye-contact, Fieldman + Eidalman found mothers respond to this two thirds of the time.

Active involvement: Babies play a effective role in forming an attachment, Brazelton et al. described this as a ‘dance’ as they respond to eachothers moves.

Interactional synchrony: The co-ordination of micro-level social behaviours, when their emotions and actions mirror eachother. Meltzoff + Moore found this happens from 2 weeks old. Isabella et al- pos correlation between degree of attachment and synchrony.

Caregiver-infant interactions:evaluation

+Research filmed in a lab. Means other confounding variables e.gdistractions for babies can be controlled, babies wont conform to hawthorne effect, and behav can be anaylysed later. So is internally valid research to back up. So more credible.

-Research hard to interpret babies behav. Movements are small expression changes or movements, and a baby smiling could just be passing wind, not happy. So uncertainty about it, cant be sure if is a special action. So validity can be questioned.

-Observing a behav doesnt tell us its developmental importance. Feldman - giving synchrony a name is not valueable as its just a pttern of behav. So may not be useful in telling us developmental importance. So dont have cause and effect so cant back up.

+Early interactions are important. Isabella et al correlation between synchrony and attachment backs up that is useful. So has reliability. Has higher population validity. H: doesnt account for indi diff.

Schaffer + Emerson stages of attachment

Procedure:60 infants, glasgow, longitudinal first year studied every month, then every 18 after. Done in babies homes, mothers kept diary and recorded infants response to separation in 7 diff ways e.g alone in room.

1:Asocial stage - Behaviour to humans and inanimate objects is similar. Show small signs they prefer other people they are familar with.Forming bonds for later attachments.

2:Indiscriminate attachment - 2-7 months, behav more observable. Show clear preference to humans than inanimate objects and recognise company of familiars, do accept love from all ppl and no stranger/separation anxiety.

3:Specific attachment - 7months classic signs of attachment e.g stranger/separation anxiety. Have primary attachment figure, who interacts w them the most, babies other in 65 perc of cases.

4:Multiple attachments - Shortly after(9monts), displays behaviours to secondary attachments, 29 perc of children form secondary attachments within month of primary.

Schaffer + Emerson stages of attachment:

+External valid. Obs made by parents were during ordinary activities, and researchers may have left babies feeling anxious if they were doing. So babiers performed with natural behav. So high in external valid. H:poor internal valid,mothers could lie about realtionship with baby.

-Issues with the mothers being ‘observers’. Unlikely that they were objective, could have been biased to what they noticed + couldnt have reported stuff. So babies behav may not be accurately recorded. So research is less effective as has less internal valid.H:ethical advantage, less harm to babies as no random observers.

-Poor evidence for asocial stage. Young babies have poor co-ordination and are fairly immobile meaning if they displayed anxiety it would have been in subtle hard to observe ways. So hard to generalise babies age and how much attachment/anxiety they show. So lacks external validity as cant create basis for a stage.

+RWA:daycare. In asocial + indiscriminate stage daycare effective as babies can be cared for by a skilled adult, but in specific stage, would be hard for unfamiliar adult. So daycare can be planned according to the stages, interchanging adults. So has practical value.

The role of the father:Attachment

Child’s closest male figure, doesnt have to be biological. Attachment to fathers:Schaffer + Emerson - Fathers less likely to become babies first att, in only 3 perc of cases, in 27 perc was joint fathers + mothers(7 months), 75perc had att by 18 months, as babies protested when their fathers walked away(separation anxiety)

The role of the father:Dinstinctive role for fathers

Q:Does att to fathers help w child development? Grossman et al - longitudinal study, att studied till teens, looked at both parents behav and the relationship to the quality of their babies attachments. Quality was better to mothers meaning att to fathers less important. But, quality of fathers play related to quality of fathers att, so they have diff roles. father - play/stimulation mother- emotion.

The role of the father:fathers as primary att figure

Not about being first, about emotional significance. Forms basis of all later emotional relationships. When fathers adopt this type, they adopt to being emotional. Field - filmed 4-month old babies interactions face-face with primary mothers, secondary fathers and primary fathers. primary fathers imitated primary mothers, smiling, imitating and holding babies more than secondary fathers, this is recipriocity and interactional synchrony.

The role of the father:evaluation

-Lack of clarity over q’s being asked. The question ‘What is the role of the father’ is complicated, and can be interpreted in diff ways, e.g primary/secondary. So is difficult to answer question directly and effectively. So lacks external validity. H:Educating fathers about babies needs can build resilience and adapt roles.

-Diff lines of research may not be in conflict to the conclusions from this. Single mother fams or lesbian fams can accomdate for the roles played by fathers. So we can question whether the distinctive role for fathers is needed, or if it is clear. So lacks external validity. H:Assumption, need to do up to date research on inclusive families.

+RWA:Can be used to offer advice to parents.Some parents may stress on what role to take on, which may result in not having children at all, mothers may feel societal pressure to stay at home, and fathers go to work, but this can reassure fathers + mothers to take on diff roles. So parental anxiety can be reduced and parenting strategies can be implemented. So is high in generlisability and value.H:Lack of consistent education to change norms.

Animal studied of att:Why do we study animals?

The formation of early bonds between non-human parents and their offspring is of interest as the att is common to a range of species, so we can use to understand att in humans.

-Can manipulate animal studies as it may be ethically wrong to do it for humans.

-Animals breed faster, and can be studied objectively.

Animal studied of att:Lorenz imprinting

Wanted to investigate when young animals follow and form att to the first large moving object they see. Split large clutch of greylag goose eggs into 2 batches, one hatched naturally by mother, and one in incubator where first thing they saw was Lorenz. Marked them so he knew which batch they were from, put under upturned box, removed it, and each batch went to the first thing they saw.(incubator - Lorenz,no interest in mother) (naturally - mother). Imprinting only happened in crit period 4-25 hours. Sexual imprinting - Birds imprinted on humans would show sexual behav on humans later.

Animal studied of att:Harlow(Contact comfort)

Wanted to investigate learning theory by comparing att w 16 baby monkies, each in 4 cond, wire mother producing milk/no milk, and towel mother producing no milk/milk. Amount of time spent w each mother aswell as feeding was recorded, monkeys scared w loud noise, to test mother preference, and larger cage was used for monkeys degree of exploration. Monkeys preferred towel mother when given choice and clung to them when scared,and preferred contact with them in large cage regardless of food. Monkeys with only wire had diarrhoea;a sign of stress. Crit period (90 days), and monkeys had innate need for emotional security over food. Maternally deprived monkeys w wire mother, not socially developed, more aggro, attacked kids.

Animal studied of att:Lorenz evaluation

+Imrpinting research supp. Regolin + Vallortigara - Chicks exposed to simple shape combos that moved e.g triangle w rectangle in front. A range of shape combos were moved infront of them and they followed orig most closely. So shows young animals are born w innate imprinting mechanism to moving object present in crit period. So supports Lorenz prediction regarding crit period + imprinting. H:Guiton et al - chicks imprinted on yellow glove would try to mate as adults but learnt to mate w chicks, learning can override innate.

-Ability to generalise findings + conclusions. Mammalian attachment system is diff and more complex. So in mammals it is a two way process as mothers also become emotionally att to their young. So isnt appropriate to generalise Lorenz findings from birds to humans(external valid).H:Ethical advantage using animals.

+Can be used to understand human behav. Seeback - computer users exhibit ‘baby duck syndrome’ where they get att to their first computing system. So demonstrates how humans imprint on objects. So has high external valid. H:att to objects is highly diff so irrelevant.

Animal studied of att:Harlow evaluation

+RWA:Mental health work. Howe - Social workers and clinical psychologists now understand that a lack of binding may be a risk factor in child dev and poor mental health. So is effective in understanding how to heal hurt children, and can be used for advice. So research is valueable in a practical sense.H:Lack of control over confounding variables, mothers had diff faces, cloth mother more ‘monkey like’ less internal valid.

-Ability to generalise findings from monkeys to humans. Human brain, behav and emotions much more complex than monkeys and how they interact. So att behaviour may differ and it would be inappropriate to apply ideas. So lack of external validity. H:Rhesus monkeys more similar than birds and mammals share common att behav.

-Ethical issues. Long term and severe distress caused to monkeys, with a lack of protection from harm as they cant consent. So research less valueable as its built off suffering. So less important and may not be considered in real life contexts. H:cost benefit analysis, gave good insight.

Exp of att:Learning theory

Dollard + Miller’s theory, att is on basis of who feeds them, in first year babies are fed 2000 times, generally by their main carer.

Exp of att:Learning theory - CC

UCS - Food, UCR - Pleasure/fed, NS - caregiver.

Caregiver(NS) gives food(UCS), bringing Pleasure(UCR), and over time this NS becomes condintioned to promote pleasure, becoming a CS bringing pleasure.

Exp of att:Learning theory - OC

Babies cry for comfort, leading to a response from caregiver, e.g feeding, as long as the correct response is given, crying is positively reinforced, so the baby can direct crying when they want something and the caregiver can respond with ‘social suppressor’ behaviour. This is a two-way process, as the caregiver is negatively reinforced as the crying is taken away, and this reinforced att.

Exp of att:Learning theory - Att as a secondary drive

Hunger is the primary drive, it is innate and we need it for survival, Sears et al - as caregivers provide food, the drive of hunger generalises to them, so att becomes a secondary drive learned by association.

Exp of att:Learning theory - evaluation

-Lack of support from animal studies. Lorenz - geese imprinted on first moving object they saw regardless of if it was associated with food. Shows it isnt a full exp as there are other factors involved. So is a less valueble theory. H:Cant generlise these studies to human thought processes.

-Lack of support from studies on human babies. Schafer + Emerson found babies from main att to mother regardless of food, Isabella et al - high quality of interactional synchrony correlated to quality of att, these arent related to food. So food is not main factor in food. So lacks reliability.

+Elements of conditioning involved in att. Baby may feel warm and comfortable in presence of someone, associating this with them increasing att. So is useful in understanding how conditioning effects att. So is more valueble. H:Reductionist - focus on basic processes is simplistic.

-Conditioning places a baby in a passive role of att. They play active role, Feldman + Eichalman - pay close attention to eachother and interact with eachother to increase att. So conditioning not effective explanation of att. So not a valid representation babies have a role. H:No gender bias, feeder can be male/female.

Explanations of att:Bowlbys Monotropic theory

Rejected learning theory as an infant(of a year or two) ‘doesn’t readily take to whomever feeds them’. Proposed that att is an evolutionary explanation, with a survival advantage.

Explanations of att:Bowlbys Monotropic theory - One primary attachment

Att to one caregiver most important, and different to others. They are the ‘mother’ but don’t have to be a biological woman. The more time a baby spends with primary att fig (‘mother’) the better, Law of continuity, the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better their achievement. Law of accumulated separation - The effects of every separation from ‘mother’ add up, ‘best dose is zero dose’.

Explanations of att:Bowlbys Monotropic theory - Social releasers and the crit period

Babies born with a set of innate ‘cute’ behav e.g smiling which encourages attention from adults - these are social releasers and crit to social interaction. Att is a reciprocal process where by both ‘mother’ and baby are ‘hard-wired’ to become att. Crit period is around 6 months, where babies are maximally sensitive, can stretch to age of 2 where if att not formed, hard to form one later.

Explanations of att:Bowlbys Monotropic theory - Internal working model

Mental representation that a child forms of their relationship w primary att fig, serving as a model for what relationships are like e.g if first relationship is loving and reliable, they bring those qualities to one. And effects ability to parent.

Explanations of att:Bowlbys Monotropic theory - evaluation

-Validity of monotropy is lackluster. Schaffer + Emerson - most babies form one att first, a significant minority formed multiple at same time, and other att may be of the same quality or more, while the first is deemed ‘stronger’. So Bowlby may have overstated the idea that there is a unique quality and importance with the primary att fig. H: Tronick et al - African Efe tribe live in extended family groups and are breastfed by other women yet their primary att fig is strongest att.

+Evidence supp on role of social releasers. Brazelton et al - Babies trigger interactions with adults through social releasers, when primary att fig instructed to ignore social releasers, babies become more distracted, eventually laying motionlesswhen not responded to. So illustrates role of social releasers in emotional dev, and shows their importance. So has validity. H:Correlational conclusion, no cause and effect, heard to measure impact of adult response to social releasers.

+Supp for internal working model. Bailey et al - assessed att relationships in 99 mothers and their one year old babies, finding that mothers w poor att to their primary att fig were more likely to have poorly att babies. So supps idea that internal working model is a real thing that effects mothers ability to form att w their babies. So has external valid. H:Deterministic, sugg they adhere to internal working model.

Types of att:Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’

Wanted to observe att types and att behaviours. Judged proximity, exploration and secure base behaviour, stranger and separation anxiety, response to reunion. Procedure - Controlled obs, used two-way mirror/camera to observe babys behav every 15 secs on scale of 1-10 on checklist. 7 episodes, each last 3 mins, caregiver + baby enter unfamiliar play room, baby encouraged to explore (test exploration + secure base), stranger comes in, talks to caregiver, approaches baby(stranger anx), caregiver leaves stranger + baby(separation + stranger anx), caregiver returns and stranger leaves(reunion behav), caregiver leaves baby alone(separation anx), stranger returns(stranger anx), caregiver returns (reunion).

Types of att:Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ findings

Secure(type B) - Explore happily but reguarly go back to caregiver, show moderate separation/stranger anx, and acquire + accept comfort from caregiver in reunion stage.(60-75 perc of british babies)

Insecure-avoidant(type A) - Explore freely, but dont seek proximity or secure-base bhav, little stranger + separation anx, when caregiver returns may avoid contact.(20-25 perc british babies)

Insecure-resistant(type C) - Seek greater proximity and explore less, high levels of stranger + separation anx, but resist comfort when reunited with caregiver. (3 perc british babies)

Types of att:Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ evaluation

+ Predicts a number of aspects of a babies later dev. McCormick et al + Kottinos - babies type b tend to have better outcomes to others, in childhood + adulthood, in childhood it includes better achivements and less involvements than bullying, other types have worse outcomes. So has importance has it measures something meaningful in babies dev. So it has external valid. H:Deterministic, other types wont always act like this.

-May not actually measure att. Kagan - genetically influenced anx levels could account for variations in att behav and later dev(stranger + sep anx). So it may measure anxiety levels, not att behav. So may lack internal valid as not a full measurement. H: Controlled so can establish cause and effect, not influenced by other factors.

+Good inter-rater reliability. Bick et al - tested this and found agreement on 91 perc of att types, this may be due to high level of controlledness. So can be sure on objectiveness of types of att. So has high internal valid.

-May not be valid in diff cult contexts. takahashi - Centered around UK, but found babies displayed high levels of separation anx, and so a disproportional number of babies were insecure-resistant, due to mother-baby separation not usual in Japan. So difficult to apply across cultures(low external valid.) So not valueable population valid

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

‘mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health’. 44 thieves, link between affectionless psychopathy, and maternal dep, teens accused interviewed for signs of lack of guilt + empathy and families interviewed to establish separation. 14 were affectionless psycopaths, 12 prolonged separations from mothers. Separation - when child is not in presence of PAF, may lead to deprivation if child doesnt recieve emotional care. Crit period - First two-and-a-half years of life for psychological dmg.

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation effects on dev

Permenent, irreversible. Intellectual - During dep in crit period, may have abnormally low iq, Goldfarb - found lower iq in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to fostered.

Emotional - Affectionless psychopathy is the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion to others, this prevents them from creating fulfilling relationships and is associated with criminality

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation evaluation

-Poor quality of evidence. Bowlby carried out both interviews, meaning they were open to bias, as he knew in advance the teens would show signs, Goldfarb also had confounding variables, where the children had early trauma. So research is flawed and might not actually measure maternal dep. So it lacks internal valid. H:Lead to social change on reduce sep of parents from children in hospitals and prisons.

+New research supp. Levy et al - Separating baby rats from their mothers for as little as a day had perm effect on social dev and psychological ones. So recent evidence to back up makes it more credible. So has temporal valid as can still be applied to this time. H:rats has low external valid.

-Confusion between diff types of early experience. Rutter - two types of early experience. Deprivation occurs with loss of PAF, after att has dev. Privation is a failure to form att in first place, e.g when children brought up in institutional care. So Bowlby may have measured privation instead of dep, so overstated effects of dep. So is a partial exp, and has less valid. H:Measure of privation can lead to follow up to understand criminal behav and reduce it.

Cultural variat in att:Ijzendoorn + kroonberg

Diff types of att across countries and diff within secular countries to assess variations within a culture. 32 studies using Strange situation, eight countries with meta analysis. Findings: All countries - secure most common, Britain highest (75 perc), China lowest (50 perc). Insecure-avoidant Germany highest (35), Japan lowest (5). Insecure-resistant Isreal highest (29), Britain lowest (3). Variations within cultures greater (150 perc).

Cultural variat in att:Simoneli et al italy

76 babies, 12 months, 50 perc secure, 36 perc insecure avoidant, which has been found in recent studies due to mothers being in work and using childcare - so varies with cultural change

Cultural variat in att:evaluation

+Indigenous psychologists conducted the research. Ijzenfoorn + kroonberg included research by a German team(Grossman) and Japanese(Takahashi), meaning psychologists are from same background of pps. So issues of cross cultural research can be avoided, such as not understanding lang or cultural bias. So richer validity as researcher has better understanding.H:Subject to bias within own culture.

-Open to being biased. Morelli + Tronick - studied patterns of att and child-rearing in the efe of zaire, and their data could have been affected by where they came from as they come from diff culture and wont understand it truly. So has less internal valid. H:still valueble as it provided findings from around the world.

-Confounding variables can impact findings. Sample characteristics such as poverty, soccial class, ethnicity can confound results, such as babies from lower class may want to explore more when they see a large room with alot of toys. So cant establish true cause and effect, affecting att type. So not useful as lacks face validity, doesnt tell us about cult variations in att. H:meta-analysis very large sample so increases valid

Romanian orphan studies:Institutionalisation

1990’s, wanted to look at effects of maternal dep on emot and intellec dev, president ceaucescu recquired women to have 6 children, but had to go to orphanages in poor condit as mothers couldnt afford to look after them.

Romanian orphan studies:Institutionalisation (Rutter et al research)

165 orphans, adopted by fams in UK, wanted to measure extent to which good care could make up for their poor experiences in orphanages. Physcial, emot, cognitive dev measured at age 4,6,11,15,22-25 yrs. Found: children first arrived showing signs of delayed intellec dev, and severely malnourished. 11, different rates of recov, based on age they were adopted, mean iq of those adopted before 6 months 102, compared with 86 for those between 6 months and 2 years, and 77 for those after age 2.

Romanian orphan studies:Institutionalisation (Zenah et al research)

Assessed att in 95 romanian children aged 12-31 months who spent most lifes in institutionalised care. Att measured using Strange Sit, also asked parents about unusual social behav e.g clinginess. 74 perc of control group (50 children never in institution) were securely att, compared to 19 perc of romanian group. Disinhibited att applied to 44 perc.

Romanian orphan studies:Institutionalisation effects

Disinhibited att - Rutter Children adopted after 6 months, equally friendly to familiar people + strangers. attention seeking, clinginess.

Romanian orphan studies:Institutionalisation

+RWA:improve condit for children growing up outside of family home. Now, care system, doesnt provide multiple caregivers, to improve condit and reduce effects of insitutionalisation, now have ‘two key workers’. So disinhibited att is avoided, and child can make two primary att. So research has high external valid and is more valueble.

+Lack of confounding variables. Past studies during WW2 children had high levels of trauma with effects of neglect and abuse, but in Romania just had loving parents who couldnt look after them. So Romanian children are less likely to be confounded by earlier neg experiences. So has high internal valid. H:Causation cant be established so other factors may have affected.

-May have confounding variables. Quantity of care was very poor, with poor intellectual care and emotional comfort, meaning this will confound. So harmfull effects seen in Romanian orphans may actually reflect the poor institutional care rather than lack of emotional caregiving. So may have poor internal valid. H:Longitudinal, can trace dev over time.

-Lack of adult data. Last data was on kids in early 20’s, so we dont actually know the long term effects of poor emotional care. So we dont have a full exp of the true effects of it. So less valueble. H:highlighted importance of early adoption.

Influence of att on later relationships