Attachment

What is attachment?

A two-way process that is a strong emotional bond, that continues over time and is characterised by a desire to maintain proximity

What are the 2 types of caregiver-infant interactions in humans?

• Reciprocity

• Interactional synchrony

What is Reciprocity?

A two way mutual interaction, in which the the caregiver and the infant respond to each other

The research study for reciprocity

• Who conducted it?

• Procedure

• Findings

• Conclusion

• Murray & Trevarthen

• Murray & Trevarthen studied 2 month old infants who

  • Interacted via a video monitor with their mother in real time

  • Then watched a video tape of their mother not interacting with them

• The results were one of acute distress by the infant, the infant tried to attract the mother’s interests but after no response, they turned away

• This shows that infants are actively seeking out a response from their caregivers illustrating the importance of reciprocity in attachment

What is Interactional Synchrony?

When the caregiver and the infants behaviour and emotions are mirroring each others, acting simultaneously

Why is interactional synchrony seen as innate?

It has been studied in infants as old as 3 days

What are high levels of interactional synchrony associated with it?

The formation of better-quality caregiver-infant attachments

The research study for interactional synchrony

• Who conducted it?

• Procedure

• Findings

• Conclusion

• Meltzoff and Moore

• Meltzoff and Moore used a controlled observation to study the beginnings of interactional synchrony in infants as young as 2 weeks old. An adult displayed three facial expressions or distinctive gestures. The child’s responses were filmed and identified by independent observers

• They found and associated between infant behaviour and that of the adult role model

• This research supports the idea that a baby’s ability to mirror their caregiver is innate and aids the formation of attachments

Compare reciprocity to interactional synchrony (2)

Reciprocity	Interactional Synchrony
Turn-taking	Behaviours are in tune with each other
Where the action of one person elicits a response from the other and vice versa	When an infant mirrors the actions of another person

What are the strengths & limitations of research into infant-caregiver interactions?

• Strengths

  • Controlled observations capture fine detail

  • Practical application

• Limitations

  • Problems with testing infant behaviour

  • Cultural differences

Evaluate ‘Controlled observations capture fine detail’ as a strength of research into infant-caregiver interactions (4)

• One strength of research into caregiver interactions is the methodology used

• Observations of caregiver-infant interactions are generally well-controlled procedures, with both caregiver and infant being filmed, often from multiple angles; This ensures that very fine details of behaviour can be recorded and later analysed

• Furthermore, babies don’t know or care that they are being observed so their behaviour does not change in response to controlled observation (unlike adults), which is sometimes a problem for observational research

• This suggests that research into infant-caregiver interactions has good internal validity.

Evaluate ‘Practical application’ as a strength of research into infant-caregiver interactions (4)

• The role of interactional synchrony in the formation of high quality attachment could have practical application that benefits society

• Crotwell et al. (2013) found that a 10-minute Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) which included teaching mothers five skills, improved interactional synchrony in 20 low-income mothers and their pre-school infants compared to a control group

• The mothers also used more child-directed techniques and their children were coded as offering their mothers toys more frequently

• This suggest that research into interactional synchrony could lead to valuable methods for improving and developing mother-infant attachments

Evaluate ‘Problems with testing infant behaviour’ as a limitation of research into infant-caregiver interactions

• A limitation is that it is difficult to reliably testing infant behaviour, infants’ mouths are in fairly constant motions (e.g. tongue sticking out, yawning, smiling) and the expressions that are tested occur frequently

• This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviour

• In order to overcome these problems Meltzoff & Moore measured infant responses by filming infants and then asking an independent observer to judge the infants’ behaviour from the video. The person doing the judging had no idea what behaviour was being imitated, which increased the internal validity of the data

• This is a strength because Meltzoff & Moore removed the general problem of observer bias which can be a problem when testing infant behaviour

Evaluate ‘Cultural differences’ as a limitation of research into infant-caregiver interactions (4)

• Interactional synchrony is not found in all cultures which contradicts the idea that the baby’s ability to imitate their caregiver is innate and aids the formation of attachments. If this is innate then it should be universal

• Cross-cultural research, such as Le Vine (1994) found that Kenyan mothers do respond promptly to their infant’s distress signals, but they ignore other vocalisations such as babbling. They rarely look at their infants or speak to them, even while breastfeeding

• However, they do have a high proportion of secure attachments. These observations have been taken as a sign that interactional synchrony and sensitivity is a Western construct that is not applicable to rural non-Western communities. These observational studies highlight that sensitive caregiving does not inherently require verbal or face-to-face interaction.

• This weakens support for the idea that caregiver-infant interactions are necessary for healthy attachment formation

What are the 4 stages of attachment?

• Asocial attachment

• Indiscriminate attachment

• Discriminate attachment

• Multiple attachment

Explain asocial attachment + age (3)

• Birth to 3 months

• From birth, infants produce similar responses to all objects

• Towards the end of this stage, infants start smiling and are more content when they are with people

• Reciprocity and interactional synchrony play a role in establishing the infant’s relationships with others

Explain indiscriminate attachment + age (2)

• 3 months to 6 months

• Infants begin to discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar people, smiling more at known people

• However, still easily comforted by anyone, enjoy being with people and do not display stranger anxiety

Explain discriminate attachment + age (3)

• 7 months onwards

• Infants begin to develop specific attachments to one person, their primary caregiver

• This is shown through separation anxiety and joy on reunion

• They also begin to display stranger anxiety as they avoid unfamiliar people and protest if strangers try to handle them

Explain multiple attachment + age (2)

• 10 months onwards

• Soon after the main attachment is formed, the infant also develops a wider circle of multiple attachments (e.g. grandparents, siblings other children)

• These relationships are called secondary attachments. Infants also display separation anxiety in these relationships

Research into Stages of attachment and Multiple attachments: Schaffer and Emerson

• Aim

• Procedure

• Findings

• Conclusion

• Schaffer and Emerson aimed to investigate the formation of early attachments and to identify the distinct stages by which attachments form

• Longitudinal study, using 60 infants from mainly working-class backgrounds, in Glasgow

  Mums + babies studied every month for 12 months + then once more at 18 months in their own homes

  At each visit mum reported babies responses to separation in seven everyday situations (separation anxiety) + the researchers also assessed the infant’s anxiety response to unfamiliar adults (stranger anxiety)

• First attachment formed between 6 + 8 months of age

  Mum was main attachment at 18 months old - 65% whilst dad was 3% and multiple attachments was 31%

  They also found that first attachments formed to those who responded quickly + sensitively + offered most interaction

• They concluded that it is the quality of the relationship not quantity that mattered most in the formation of attachments

What are the strengths + limitations of research into stages of attachment + multiple attachments?

• Strengths

  • Validity of findings

• Limitations

  • Biased sample

  • Assessing multiple attachments

  • Are multiple attachments as important as one primary attachment

Evaluate ‘validity of findings’ as a strength + limitation of research into stages of attachment + multiple attachments (5)

• A strength of Schaffer and Emerson’s research into stages of attachment is that the study has mundane realism

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

• This means that the behaviour of the babies was unlikely to be affected by the presence of the observers, meaning that the participants behaved naturally

• However, some of the data was based on mothers’ reports of their infants; some mothers may have been less sensitive to their infants’ protests and therefore less likely to report them

• This would create a systematic bias which would challenge the validity of the data

Evaluate ‘biased’ as a limitation of research into stages of attachment + multiple attachments (5)

• A criticism of the research into stages of attachment is that of the sample used

• This is because they used a small sample of 60 babies and their carers from the same district and social class

• This is a limitation as child-rearing practises vary from one culture to another

• The research was also conducted in the 1960’s and parental care of children has changed considerably since that time. More women go out to work so many children are cared for outside of the home by other family members or at day-care settings

• This therefore suggests the findings lack temporal validity and questions whether the findings can be generalised to other social and historical contexts

Evaluate ‘assessing multiple attachments’ as a limitation of research into stages of attachment + multiple attachments (4)

• A limitation of research into multiple attachments is that there may be a problem with how multiple attachment are assessed

• Just because an infant gets distressed when an individual leaves the room does not necessarily mean that the individual is a ‘true’ attachment figure

• Bowlby (1969) pointed out that children have playmates as well as attachment figures and they may be distressed when a playmate leaves the room, but this does not signify attachment to them

• This is a limitation as Schaffer and Emerson’s view of the stages of attachment does not give us a way to distinguish between behaviour shown towards secondary attachment figures and towards playmates

Evaluate ‘Are multiple attachments as important as one primary attachments’ as a limitation of research into stages of attachment + multiple attachments ()

• Schaffer and Emerson’s research (and Bowlby's) indicates that infants form attachments to a single main caregiver before developing multiple attachments and that this is important for later social and emotional development

• However, Thomas (1998) suggests the tendency to form a single main attachment is not good for healthy psychological development and that it may be more desirable to have various attachments that meet the growing needs of the infants

• Additionally, there are cultural differences in the formation of attachments. Research suggests that in collectivist cultures, infants form multiple attachments from the onset rather than to one primary attachment figure (Van Ijzendoorn et al., 1993)

• This suggests there is mixed evidence for a hierarchical attachment as proposed by Schaffer and Emerson.

What is the role of the father + what is the evidence to support these claims? (3)

• The role of the father is the secondary attachment figure → Schafferson + Emmerson → 3% main attachments figure but 75% formed an attachment by 18 months

• The role of the father in the long term is less important → Grossman → quality of the attachment with the father was less important for the teen than the quality of attachment with the mother

• The role of fathers’ play is more important → Bowlby → a father is more likely to engage in physically active and novel play than the mother and tends to become his child's preferred play companion

What are the strengths + limitations of the role of the father?

• Limitations

  • Fathers may not have distinct roles

  • Are separate roles important for attachment

  • Objective observations

  • Socially sensitive issue

Evaluate ‘Fathers may not have distinct roles’ as a limitation of the role of the father (4)

• A limitation of research into the role of the father is that there is evidence that undermines the idea that fathers have distinct roles and suggests that when fathers do take on the role of being the main caregiver they adopt behaviours more typical of mothers

• Lamb (1987) found that fathers who become main care providers seem able to quickly develop more sensitivity to children’s needs and become a safe base from which to explore

• Parke observed fathers’ and mothers’ behaviour towards their newborn babies. They found that fathers are not only as interested as the mothers in their babies but they are just as good at understanding the babies’ cues (e.g. crying)

• These studies therefore indicate that both men and women have the same potential to become primary attachment figures

Evaluate ‘Are separate roles important for attachment?’ as a limitation of the role of the father (4)

• It is questionable whether separate roles by a mother and a father are important for attachment formation

• Studies have found that children growing up in single or same sex parent families do not develop differently from those in two-parent families (McCallum and Golombok, 2004)

• Schaffer and Emerson also concluded from their research that it is the quality of the relationship not quantity that mattered most in the formation of attachments

• This therefore suggests that the key to the attachment relationship is the level of responsiveness not the gender of the caregiver

Evaluate ‘Objective observations’ as a limitation of the role of the father (4)

• A limitation of research into the role of the father is that social biases prevent objective observation

• This is because there are preconceptions about how fathers should behave due to views about traditional gender roles.

• These stereotypes may cause unintentional observer bias whereby observers ‘see’ what they expect rather than recording actual reality

• This is a limitation as the conclusions on the role of the father in attachment are hard to disentangle from social biases about their role

Evaluate ‘Socially sensitive issue’ as a limitation of the role of the father (6)

• Research into the father is a socially sensitive topic as it has major implications for the lifestyle choices families make when their children are young

• Past research suggests that the primary attachment will most likely be the mother rather than the father

• This may therefore push mothers rather than fathers into particular lifestyle choices with economic implications such as not returning back to work when a child is born or whether to place the child in a day care setting

• However more current research by Cohn (2014) suggests that the number of fathers who stay at home and care for their children has quadrupled over the past 25 years, illustrating how the father can also be the primary caregiver

• Bowlby underestimated the role of the father and saw the father’s role as primarily economic, which is now seen as an outdated and sexist viewpoint

• This therefore highlights how research into the role of the father is a controversial topic in individualistic cultures

Research into animal studies of attachment: Lorenz

• Procedure

• Findings (3)

• Conclusion

• Lorenz used a laboratory experiment and randomly divided a clutch of gosling eggs into two groups (independent groups design)

  Control group - half the eggs were left with the mother goose in their natural environment

  Experimental group - half of the eggs were placed in an incubator. When they hatched the first moving object they saw was Lorenz

• Imprinting - Goslings exposed to Lorenz first followed him as their mother, forming a strong attachment. The control group followed their biological mother. When reunited, the goslings split, each group returning to their respective 'mothers'

  Long term effects – Imprinting is irreversible, long-lasting, and influences later mate preferences (sexual imprinting)

  Critical period - Imprinting must occur within a critical period; otherwise, chicks won’t form an attachment to a mother figure

• Lorenz’s research showed that imprinting gives animals an evolutionary advantage, improving survival by keeping them safe, ensuring they’re fed, and teaching them to find food

Research into animal studies of attachment: Harlow

• Aim

• Procedure

• Findings (3)

• Conclusion

• demonstrate that attachment was not based on the feeding bond

• Laboratory experiment, monkeys split into 2 groups (independent groups design)

  Condition one – the cloth mother provided milk and the wire monkey didn’t (4 monkeys)

  Condition two – the wire monkey provided milk and the cloth monkey didn’t (4 monkeys)

  The monkeys were studied for 165 days. During that time, measurements were made of the amount of time each spent with the two different ‘mothers’

• Long-term effects - Motherless monkeys grew up abnormally, becoming aggressive, unsociable, and breeding less. Some neglected or even killed their offspring

  Sociability + relationship to offspring - Baby monkeys stayed with the cloth mother for comfort, even if it didn’t provide milk. They only used the wire mother briefly for feeding. When scared or exploring, they sought reassurance from the cloth mother

  Critical period - Harlow found a 90-day critical period for attachment. After this, no attachment could form, and early deprivation caused irreversible damage

• Harlow showed attachment develops from contact comfort, not feeding. He highlighted the importance of early relationships for later social development, including adult bonds and parenting

What is the strength + limitation of Research into animal studies of attachment: Lorenz

• Strength

  • Research support for imprinting and critical period

• Limitation

  • Contradictory evidence

Evaluate ‘Research support for imprinting and critical period’ as a strength of Research into animal studies of attachment: Lorenz (4)

• There are a number of studies that have demonstrated imprinting in animals thus supporting Lorenz’s research

• For example, Guiton (1966) exposed leghorn chicks to yellow rubber gloves whilst feeding them, during their first few weeks after birth. They found that they became imprinted on the glove

• This supports the view that young animals are not born with a predisposition to imprint on a specific object but on any moving object that is present during the critical window of development

• This suggests there is a ‘window of opportunity’ (critical period) in which attachments must be formed otherwise this may lead to negative long-term consequences, this was also found to be true of humans in Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation

Evaluate ‘Contradictory evidence’ as a limitation of Research into animal studies of attachment: Lorenz (5)

• However, many psychologists now dispute Lorenz’s view that imprinting is IRREVERSIBLE

• In Guiton’s research, when the chickens matured and spent some time with their own species, they engaged in normal mating behaviour

• This therefore illustrates that imprinting CAN be reversed beyond the critical window of development, like many other forms of learning

• In humans it has also been found that the critical period may be more of a ‘sensitive period’ as studies, such as the Romanian orphan studies, have demonstrated that children have recovered from the effects of early deprivation

• This suggests that imprinting is not as permanent as Lorenz once thought

What is the strength of Research into animal studies of attachment: Harlow

• Strength

  • Practical application

Evaluate ‘Practical application’ as a strength of Research into animal studies of attachment: Harlow (5)

• A strength of Harlow’s research is that it went against the dominant belief that attachment was related to physical care (i.e. food) and instead showed the importance of emotional care

• This was further supported in human studies, Schaffer and Emerson found mothers responsiveness mattered most in the formation of attachment between caregiver and infant.

• This led to important practical applications with both humans and animals. For example, it has helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse and so intervene to prevent it (Howe, 1998).

• These findings were also important in the care of captive monkeys as we now understand the importance of adequate attachment figures for babies in zoos and also in breeding programmes in the wild.

• This therefore illustrates how Harlow’s research has been used in a number of contexts and has practical value

What are the general limitations to research into animal studies of attachment?

• Limitations

  • Problems of extrapolation to attachment in human infants

  • Ethical issues

Evaluate ‘Problems of extrapolation to attachment in human infants’ as a general limitation of research into animal studies of attachment (4)

• Although a strength of animals studies is that that they have influenced research into human attachment such as Bowlby’s idea of a critical period in human babies and they have influenced our understanding of human development, there is a problem of extrapolating (generalising) from findings on animals to humans.

• Human attachment behaviour is very different to other animals especially as much more of our behaviour is governed by conscious decisions

• Mammalian mothers for example, show more emotional attachment to their young than birds do.

• This means that it may not be appropriate to try and generalise the work from animal studies in order to explain human attachment

Evaluate ‘Ethical issues’ as a general limitation of research into animal studies of attachment (5)

• A number of ethical issues were raised in both Lorenz and Harlow’s research

• This is because both studies created stress to the young animals after being separated from their mothers

• They also caused long term emotional harm as the animals found it difficult to form relationships as adults including the formation of appropriate mating strategies

• However, the experiments can be justified in terms of the significant effect they had on our understanding of the process of attachment in humans at that time

• It therefore could be argued that the benefits outweigh the costs to the animals and is something to consider when monitoring what counts as good science.

What are the 2 explanations of attachment?

• Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory

• Learning Theory

What does Bowlby’s monotropic theory explain?

Bowlby’s monotropic attachment theory explains ‘how’ and ‘why’ attachments form

State the 5 components of Bowlby’s monotropic theory

• Adaptive + Innate

• Social releasers

• Critical period

• Monotropy

• Internal working model

Explain Adaptive + Innate as a component of Bowlby’s monotropic theory

Adaptive + Innate → Evolutionary explanation → Bowlby suggested attachment is innate and adaptive, helping infants survive by staying close to their caregiver for safety, food, and protection

Explain Social releasers as a component of Bowlby’s monotropic theory

Social releases → Babies have social releasers, like smiling and crying, that trigger caregiving behaviours. These help form a reciprocal bond with the caregiver, and infants become most attached to the person who responds most sensitively

Explain Critical period as a component of Bowlby’s monotropic theory

Critical period → Bowlby believed the first two years are critical for attachment, with maximum sensitivity at six months. If attachment isn’t formed by age two, it becomes harder to form later

Explain Monotropy as a component of Bowlby’s monotropic theory

Monotropy → Bowlby believed infants have an innate tendency to form a primary attachment (monotropy), which is more important than others. The law of accumulated separation suggests that time away from the primary caregiver negatively impacts attachment development

Explain Internal working model as a component of Bowlby’s monotropic theory

Internal Working Model → Bowlby suggested that a child’s first attachment forms a mental representation, or internal working model, of relationships. This model influences future relationships and parenting. The law of continuity states that early attachments impact social and emotional competence in adulthood, with securely attached infants being more successful in relationships later on

What are the strengths + limitations of Bowlby’s monotropic theory?

• Strengths

  • Supporting evidence that attachment is adaptive and innate

  • Supporting evidence for the internal working model

  • Research support for the critical period

• Limitations

  • Ethical Implications

  • Are multiple attachments as important as monotropy

Evaluate ‘Supporting evidence that attachment is adaptive and innate ’ as a strength of Bowlby’s monotropic theory (4)

• There is supporting evidence from a number of studies into imprinting which demonstrate that attachment is adaptive and innate

• New-born animals such as goslings appear to form a picture of their parent(s) within hours of birth and this helps them stick closely to this important source of protection and food

• Lorenz believed that imprinting has evolutionary value for animals since the young animal that follows its mother is more likely to be safe from predators, to be fed and to learn how to find food, i.e. to increase their chances of survival and natural selection

• However, care must be taken when extrapolating from goslings to humans – imprinting (following behaviour) may not be an appropriate model for the development of attachment (human emotion)

Evaluate ‘Supporting evidence for the internal working model’ as a strength of Bowlby’s monotropic theory (5)

• There have been numerous studies into child and adult relationships that provide support for the internal working model

• Hazan and Shavers found that adult romantic love can be related back to an individual’s attachment history. Secure attachment types had love experiences that were happy, friendly, trusting

• Insecure types found relationships less easy, were more likely to be divorced and felt that true love was rare

• In addition, Simpson et al’s (2007) found that participants who were securely attached as infants were rated as having higher social competence as children, closer to their friends at age 16 and were more expressive and were emotionally attached to their romantic partners in early adulthood

• This supports the view that attachment type does predict future childhood and adult relationships.

Evaluate ‘Research support for the critical period’ as a strength of Bowlby’s monotropic theory (6)

• There are a number of supporting studies that have demonstrated a critical period for attachment in animals

• For example, Lorenz identified a critical period in which imprinting needed to have taken place. If imprinting did not occur within this critical period, Lorenz found that chicks did not attach themselves to a mother figure

• Like Lorenz, Harlow also found a critical period, he believed if a mother figure was not introduced to an infant monkey within 90 days, attachment was impossible

• This suggests there is a ‘window of opportunity’ (critical period) in which attachments must be formed otherwise this may lead to long-term negative consequences

• In addition, Rutter’s findings suggest that children can recover from institutionalisation if they are removal from institutional care before 6 months

• This offers further support for Bowlby’s belief that if an attachment is not formed within a critical period, a child will find it much harder to form one later

Evaluate ‘Ethical implications’ as a limitation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory (7)

• Monotropy is a socially sensitive issue because it has major implications for the lifestyle choices mothers make when their children are young

• The law of accumulated separation states that having substantial time apart from a primary attachment figure increases the risk of a poor-quality attachment that will disadvantage the child in a range of ways later

• It therefore pushes mothers into particular lifestyle choices with economic implications, such as not returning to work when a child is born or whether to place the child in a day-care setting

• Burman (1994) has pointed out that this places a burden of responsibility on mothers and is therefore a controversial topic in individualistic cultures.

• Additionally, Bowlby underestimated the role of the father and saw the father’s role as primarily economic, which is now seen as an outdated and sexist viewpoint

• To support this, Cohn (2014) showed that the number of fathers who stay at home and care for their children has quadrupled over the past 25 years

• This illustrates how the father can also be the primary caregiver and questions whether Bowlby’s monotropic theory can be generalised to other social and historical contexts

Evaluate ‘Are multiple attachments as important as monotropy’ as a limitation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory (5)

• In contrast to monotropy contradictory research into multiple attachments has suggested that all attachment figures are equally important (Rutter)

• This questions whether there is the need for a special relationship with one central person above others in the hierarchy of attachments

• Thomas (1998) suggests the tendency to form a single main attachment is not good for healthy psychological development and that it may be more desirable to have a variety of different attachments that meet the growing needs of the infants

• Thomas found in Caribbean and European cultures children developed many equally important attachments

• This suggests there is mixed evidence for monotropy as a hierarchical attachment weakening the validity of Bowlby’s explanation.

Explain the Learning theory (2)

• This approach is known as the cupboard love theory because it focuses on the caregiver’s role in providing food

• Learning theorists suggest that babies learn to be attached to their caregiver either through CLASSICAL and OPERANT conditioning

What are the 2 types of conditioning proposed by the learning theory?

• Classical Conditioning

• Operant Conditioning

Explain Classical conditioning

Classical conditioning involves learning through association

Explain how classical conditioning works

In the case of attachment, the pleasure of food (UCS) becomes associated with the caregiver who feeds the infant (NS) → Through classical conditioning this person becomes a source of pleasure even when there is no feeding → The neutral stimulus (caregiver) has become a conditioned stimulus and now the sight of the caregiver alone produces the conditioned response of pleasure

What is operant conditioning + who explains it + what is the underlying principle?

• Dollard + Miller

• Involves learning through reinforcement

• If a behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, that behaviour is likely to be repeated.

Explain how operant conditioning works

Hunger is a primary drive, a hungry infant feels uncomfortable and will be ‘driven’ to seek food to satisfy his/her hunger → When the infant is fed, the drive is reduced, and this produces a sense of pleasure (a reward) → Food is therefore a primary reinforcer because it directly reduces the discomfort, and the behaviour is likely to be repeated (learned)

Explain operant conditioning in terms of drive and reinforcer

Attachment is a secondary drive. The person who provides the food that reduces the drive becomes a secondary reinforcer. From then on, the infant seeks to be with the person who has become a secondary reinforcer because he/she is now a source of reward in their own right, and an attachment is formed

How does operant conditioning explain why babies cry?

Operant conditioning can explain why babies cry for comfort, an important behaviour in building attachment. Crying is positively reinforced by the caregiver as it creates a pleasant response, for example feeding. This reinforcement is a two-way process, at the same time as the baby being positively reinforced for crying, the caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops (removing the negative stimulus). If a behaviour escapes/removes something negative, that behaviour is likely to be repeated. This interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment

What are the strengths + limitations of the learning theory?

• Strengths

  • Evidence for learning through association and reinforcement

• Limitations

  • Research into infant-caregiver interactions

  • Reductionist

  • Alternative explanation

Evaluate ‘Evidence for learning through association and reinforcement’ as a strength of the learning theory (6)

• A strength of the learning theory is that it is plausible, scientific, and based on an established theory.

• This is because there is plenty of psychological research which demonstrates that we do learn lots of behaviours through association and reinforcement. So there seems to be no reason to believe that attachment would be any different

• However, the problem with the learning theory is the idea that feeding provides the unconditioned stimulus, reinforcement or primary drive

• It could be that association (through classical conditioning) between the primary caregiver and providing comfort and social interaction helps build an attachment

• For example, Harlow’s work with monkeys showed that it was contact comfort rather than the food which was the important factor in attachment and also in the study by Lorenz, the geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them

• This therefore suggests that different elements of conditioning need to be considered when explaining attachment.

Evaluate ‘Research into infant-caregiver interactions’ as a limitation of the learning theory (4)

• A criticism of the learning explanation is that it does not take into account the quality of infant-caregiver interactions

• Research into early infant-caregiver interactions suggests that the quality of attachment is associated with factors such as developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony

• In addition, studies have shown that the best quality attachments are with sensitive carers that pick up signals and respond appropriately

• Therefore, if attachment was purely as a result of feeding, there would be no purpose for these complex interactions, thus limiting the learning theory of attachment

Evaluate ‘Reductionist’ as a limitation of the learning theory (5)

• The behaviourist approach is criticised because it is reductionist simplifying the complex behaviour of attachment to purely a stimulus-response or through reinforcement

• The learning explanation focuses on nurture ignoring nature and the view that attachments are innate

• In a variation of Harlow’s research, infant monkeys continued to demonstrate attachment to highly abusive mothers who blasted them with cold air at regular intervals

• Attachment occurred in the absence of rewards, showing the instinctive nature of this process

• These are therefore significant omissions that are needed to gain a complete (holistic) understanding of why attachment occurs

Evaluate ‘Alternative explanation’ as a limitation of the learning theory (3)

• Hay and Vespo (1988) have proposed a newer explanation for infant-caregiver attachment based on social learning theory whereby attachment is acquired largely as a result of modelling and imitation of attachment behaviour by parents

• Hay and Vespo suggest that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviour e.g. by hugging them and other family members, and instructing and rewarding them with approval when they display attachment behaviour of their own ‘that’s a lovely hug’

• This explanation takes into account how attachment is learned indirectly rather than a direct approach as proposed by traditional learning theories of attachment.

State the differences between Bowlby’s Montoropic Theory and the Learning Theory (3)

Bowlbys Montoropic Theory	The Learning Theory
Infants are innately programmed to form attachments - attachment is a biological process	Attachment is learned
There is a sensitive period to form an attachment	Attachment is learned and can be relearned - the effects can be reversed
We become attached to a responsive figure	We become attached to the person that provides us food

What are the 3 types of attachment proposed by Ainsworth’s Strange Situation?

• Secure

• Insecure-avoidant

• Insecure-resistant

Explain Secure attachment (Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’)

• Associated with psychologically healthy outcomes

• In the strange situation, this is shown by

  • the infant using the caregiver as a secure base

  • moderate stranger & separation anxiety

  • joy on reunion

• Develops as a result of sensitive responding by the caregiver to the infant’s needs

Explain Insecure-avoidant attachment (Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’)

• Attachment type characterised by low anxiety but weak attachments

• In the strange situation, this is shown by

  • low stranger & separation anxiety

  • little response to reunion

• Develops as a result of the caregiver’s lack of sensitive responsiveness to the infant’s needs

Explain Insecure-resistant attachment (Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’)

• Attachment type characterised by high anxiety and strong attachments

• In the strange situation, this is shown by

  • high stranger & separation anxiety alternating between seeking closeness & wanting distance at contact

• Develops as a result of the caregiver’s ambivalence (inconsistency) to the infant’s needs

Explain Ainsworth’s ‘strange situation’ study

• Aim

• Procedure (2)

• Findings

• Conclusion

• Investigate individual differences in types of attachments, especially differences between secure and insecure attachments

• Took place in a lab playroom, and was a controlled observation, set up using a one-way mirror and videotaping the research. Consisted of 8 episodes which lasted for 3 mins. Consisted of mum and baby playing, then stranger entering and then mum leaving and then re-entering etc

  Sample consisted of American infants aged 12-18 months & observer recorded the infants and mothers’ behaviour

• Key behaviours noted:

  • Exploration and Secure base → secure attached kid uses mum as a secure base

  • Separation anxiety → the response the child makes when the mother departs

  • Stranger anxiety → the reaction of the child to a stranger

  • Reunion behaviour → how the child behaves when the mum returns

• 3 main types of attachments were identified → Secure = 70%, Insecure avoidant = 20%, Insecure resistant = 10%

• Ainsworth believed there are significant individual differences between infants, which may be related to the behaviour and responsiveness of the caregiver, which suggests that an innate tendency for attachment is affected by life experiences

In terms of the findings of Ainsworth's Strange Situation, explain what behaviour from a secure attachment child looked like (4)

• Willingness to explore → Explore happily but regularly go back to caregiver (seeking proximity)

• Separation anxiety → Moderate distress

• Stranger anxiety →Moderate distress (treats mum and stranger differently)

• Reunion behaviour →Joy on reunion

In terms of the findings of Ainsworth's Strange Situation, explain what behaviour from a secure attachment child looked like (4)

• Willingness to explore → Explores freely but doesn't seek proximity, play is not affected by the presence of the mum

• Separation anxiety → Little distress

• Stranger anxiety → Responds to the mum and stranger in a similar way

• Reunion behaviour →Avoids contact on reunion

In terms of the findings of Ainsworth's Strange Situation, explain what behaviour from a secure attachment child looked like (4)

• Willingness to explore → No secure base and not willing to explore

• Separation anxiety → Very distressed (clingy)

• Stranger anxiety → Resists the stranger

• Reunion behaviour →Seeks and resists contact on reunion

What are the strengths & limitations of Ainsworth's ‘Strange Situation’ study

• Strengths

  • Predictive Validity

  • Reliable

• Limitations

  • Culture-bound test

  • Other types of attachments

Evaluate ‘Predictive Validity’ as a strength for Ainsworth's ‘Strange Situation' Study (4)

• A strength of the strange situation is that not only does it provide a good

  measure of attachment that differentiates between the different attachment types; it also strongly predicts later development.

• Infants assessed as secure typically go on to have better outcomes in many areas, ranging from success at school to romantic relationships and friendships in adulthood

• Insecure-resistant attachment is associated with the worst outcome including bullying in later childhood (Myron-Wilson and Smith, 1998) and adult mental health problems (Ward et al. 2006)

• This supports the predictive validity of the strange situation as a useful tool to identify early types of attachment and predict adult relationships

Evaluate ‘Reliable’ as a strength for Ainsworth's ‘Strange Situation' Study (4)

• The strange situation shows very good inter-rater reliability. In other words, different observers watching the same children in the strange situation generally agree on what attachment type to classify them with.

• This may be because the strange situation takes place under controlled conditions using standardised procedures and because the behavioural categories are easy to observe

• In a recent study, Bick et al. (2012) looked at inter-rater reliability in a team of trained strange situation observers and found agreement on attachment type for 94% of tested infants

• This means 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.

Evaluate ‘Culture-bound test’ as a limitation for Ainsworth's ‘Strange Situation' Study (5)

• The strange situation was created and tested in the USA, which means it may be culturally biased (ethnocentric), as it will reflect the norms and values of American culture

• Cultural differences in childhood experiences are likely to mean that children and their caregivers respond differently to the strange situation.

• For example, Takahashi (1990) noted that the strange situation did not work in Japan, as Japanese mothers are so rarely separated from their babies that there are very high levels of separation anxiety

• At the reunion episode, Japanese mothers rushed to the babies and scooped them up, meaning the child’s response was hard to observe

• This suggests the strange situation is an example of imposed etic, Mary Ainsworth assumed that the American based model of classifying attachment was the norm, and so she imposed her own cultural understanding upon the rest of the world

Evaluate ‘Other types of attachment’ as a limitation for Ainsworth's ‘Strange Situation' Study ()

• However Main and Solomon (1986) found that Ainsworth et al. overlooked a fourth type of attachment

• They analysed over 200 strange situation videotapes and proposed insecure- disorganised attachment, type D, which is characterised by a lack of consistent patterns of social behaviour

• Such infants lack a coherent strategy for dealing with the stress of separation

• For example, they show very strong attachment behaviour which is suddenly followed by avoidance or looking fearful towards their caregiver

• Van Ijzendoorn et al (1999) further supported this with a meta-analysis of nearly 80 studies in the US. They found 15% were classified as insecure-disorganised

• Therefore, the existence of a disorganised attachment type challenges Ainsworth’s notion of attachment types

What are cultural variations? (2)

• Cultural variations in attachment are the difference in norms and values about childbearing and parenting

• Studies have been conducted in various countries to see whether the theory of types of attachments (of Ainsworth's SS) are universal or culture-bound

Explain the study done for cultural variations in attachment by Van Ijzendoorn

• Aim

• Procedure

• Findings

• Conclusion

• To investigate the proportion of secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant attachment across a range of countries. They also looked at the difference within the same country to get an idea of the variations within a culture

• Carried out meta analysis of the findings from 32 studies carried out in 8 different countries. Overall 32 studies → 1900 children. All studies comprised of at least 35 mother and infant pairs aged <2 years. Was carried out in individualistic countries (USA, UK, Germany) and collectivist countries (Japan, China Israel)

• Overall → Secure = 67%, Insecure avoidant = 21%, Insecure resistant = 12%

  Secure → most commonly but proportions differed from 75% UK & 50% in China, Insecure resistant → least common although found more in collectivist cultures, Insecure avoidant → mostly observed in Germany and least commonly in Japan and Israel

• In conclusion the global pattern of attachment across cultures appears to be similar to that found in the US which supports the idea that secure attachment is ‘best’ for healthy social and emotional development and seems to be the norm which confirms Bowlby's theory that attachment is innate and universal

List some specific stats from different countries and attachment types

What are the strengths and limitations of the study done for cultural variations in attachment by Van Ijzendoorn

• Strengths

  • Population Validity

• Limitations

  • Imposed Etic

  • Country rather than culture

  • Temperament Hypothesis

Evaluate ‘Population validity’ as a strength of study done for cultural variations in attachment by Van Ijzendoorn (6)

• A strength of combining the results of attachment studies carried out in different countries is that you can end up with a very large sample

• In Van Ijzendoorn meta-analysis there was a total of nearly 2000 babies and their primary attachment figure

• However, care should be taken when drawing conclusions from Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s because of the limited variety of studies used

• Over half (18) of the 32 studies were carried out in the US, whereas only one was carried out in China. 27 studies were carried out in individualistic cultures and only 5 in collectivist cultures

• This suggests that the limited number of countries and small samples used may not be truly representative of the population

• Therefore more research must be conducted in a variety of cultures with larger samples to allow for meaningful comparisons

Evaluate ‘Imposed Etic’ as a limitation of study done for cultural variations in attachment by Van Ijzendoorn (5)

• The Strange Situation (which was developed in the U.S.) may not be an appropriate way of measuring attachment types in other cultures as the Strange Situation reflects the norms and values of American culture

• he use of a technique developed in one culture to study another is known as an imposed etic and it makes the methodology inherently flawed

• For example, children raised on the Israeli Kibbutz are most distressed at the arrival of the stranger (Fox, 1977) and German children are more likely to be classed as insecure avoidant because their parents value independence (Grossmann and Grossmann, 1991)

• These examples show that the strange situation has a different meaning in different cultures

• This suggests that the Strange Situation may not be a valid measure of attachment in different cultures and if we are to interpret the findings of the Strange Situation accurately, we need to know about the child rearing practices of those cultures

Evaluate ‘Country rather than culture’ as a limitation of study done for cultural variations in attachment by Van Ijzendoorn (5)

• The meta-analysis by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg drew conclusion about cultural differences, yet they actually were not comparing cultures but countries

• For example, they compared Japan with the US. Within each country there are many difference subcultures, each of which may have different child caring practices

• One study of attachment in Tokyo (an urban setting) found similar distributions of attachment types to other Western studies, whereas a more rural sample found an over-representation of insecure-resistant individuals

• Indeed, Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg found more variations within cultures than between cultures, presumably because the data was collected on different subcultures within each country

• Therefore, greater caution should be exercised in assuming that an individual sample is representative of a particular culture

Evaluate ‘Temperament hypothesis’ as a limitation of study done for cultural variations in attachment by Van Ijzendoorn (4)

• There is a basic issue with using the strange situation in research into cultural variations in attachment, as the strange situation believed that differences in attachment types were a result of the mother’s sensitivity to the children’s needs

• However, Kagan (1982) criticised the strange situation for placing too much emphasis on the role of the mother and ignores the temperament of the child

• The temperament hypothesis suggests it is the child’s innate personality, the genetically influenced personality of the child that is the key factor in the formation of attachment (e.g., some infants form secure attachments because they are innately friendlier than other infants)

• If the strange situation is affected by factors other than attachment, for example, innate personality, then it lacks validity as a measurement tool, and if the bulk of research into cultural variations has used the strange situation and it lacks validity, then all the findings of this research are called into question, and we may therefore actually know very little about cultural variations in attachment