Attachment

Attachment

* A strong, enduring bond that an infant has with one or more of his/her caregivers


* Qualities:
* Selective
* Proximity seeking
* Provide comfort & security
* Distress on separation

Reciprocity

Interaction between 2 people where they respond to each other signal, one after the other

\

Interactional synchrony

When infants move their bodies in tune with the rhythm of carers’ spoken language

\
Mother’s & infant’s actions and emotions mirror the other

S-Melzoff & Moore

Infants (2-3 weeks) tended to mimic adult’s facial expressions & hand movements

=> Support the idea that interactional synchrony is an innate ability to aid the formation of attachments

S-Isabella et al

Observed 30 mothers & infants tgt and assessed the degree of synchrony & quality of attachment

* Found that high lvl of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant attachment

=> Interactional synchrony is important in forming attachments

W-Le vine et al

Reported that Kenyan mothers have little interactions w/ their infants BUT infants have a high portions of secure attachment

\
Interactional synchrony (IS) is not found in all cultures

=> Weakens support for the necessity of IS

W-Not certain about infants’ POV

We can merely observe hand movements/changes in expression => can’t be certain

E.g Is the imitation of adult signals conscious?

=> Problems → We can’t really know for certain that behaviours seen in M-I interaction have a special meaning

W- Demand characteristics

Mothers may know that they’re being observed => Behave in a way they thought is expected of them

=> Misleading result & Internal validity

Pre - attachment phase

0-2 months

Babies → asocial, similar responses to both living-non-living objects

6 weeks → start to treat human diff.

Interactional synchrony & Reciprocity are important

Indiscriminate attachment phase

2-7/8 months

Can distinguish btw familiar & unfamiliar ppl

Easy to be comforted by anyone/ No stranger anxiety

Sociable

Specific attachment phase

7/8 months onward

Form a specific attachment to one person

Separation/stranger anxiety

Special joy when reunited w/ main attachment

\
\

Multiple attachments

10/11 months onward

Develop secondary attachments

Display separation anxiety form these relationships

The main attachment is still the strongest

S-Schaffer & Emerson

Interview 60 mothers about their children

F: Within 1 month of 1st forming primary attachment -29% formed multiple attachments w/ someone else

=> Supports the idea that specific attachments are followed multiple attachments

W-Flawed research

Mothers’ reports of infants may be biased

E.g. Social desirability bias

=> Lack internal validity

W-Lack temporal validity

Findings in 1960s → society & parental care has changed (more mothers go to work & more fathers stay at home)

=> Not representative of how attachments develop in the modern day

W-Single parents

Children w/o a father don’t develop differently to children w/ both mother & father

=> Father don’t necessary play a distinct role in child development

W-Ethnocentric

Culturally biased

E.g in some cultures multiple attachments come first

Role of father & mother roles in childrearing varies greatly

=> Limited explanation

Multiple attachment

Infant developing attachment to 2 or more people

Schaffer & Emerson

Interview 60 mothers about their children

F: Within 1 month of 1st forming primary attachment -29% formed multiple attachments w/ someone else

* By 1, 1/3 formed 5 or more secondary attachment

=> Supports the idea that specific attachments are followed multiple attachments

S-At advantage

Children are more able to form & conduct social relationships as they have experience doing so

If loses an attachment figure → has others that it can turn to

W-Not clear when

Most babies form a primary attachment first before secondary ones

Some argue that babies form multiple attachment from the outset - collectivist culture

=> More research needs to be carried out on MA & when

Father as primary attachment (PA)

S&E: Father → less likely to be PA figures than mother

Bc they spend less time w/ infants or less sensitive to infants’ cues than mothers

Single fathers do form secure relationship w/ child & successful at PA

Father as secondary attachment

More playful, physically active & better at providing challenging situations → exciting playmate

Lack of sensitivity → positive fosters problem-solving by encouraging communication

Grossman

Longitudinal study - parents’ behaviours & quality of children’s attachments in their teen

* F: Quality of attachment w/ mother related to attachment in adolescence → father attachment < important
* Quality of father’s play related to quality of attachment in adolescence → role more to do w/ playing

Schaffer&Emerson

Mother: 1st attachment → other attachments later

75% studied → attachment was formed w/ father by 18 months (infants protested when their fathers walk away)

Geiger

Fathers’ play interactions are more exciting & pleasurable than mothers’

=> Supports the idea of fathers being playmates rather than caregivers

Lamb

Infants prefer interacting w/ fathers when in a positive mental state → seek stimulation

=> Supports fathers being preferred as playmates but only in certain conditions

Pederson

Children w/o fathers → less well in school & more aggressive

Pederson → studies focused on single mothers from poor social economic backgrounds → social factors not absence of father

S- Used to offer advice to parents

Offer reassuring advice to parents about PA caregiver role

E.g. het couples can be informed that fathers can be PA

=> Positive → Parental anxiety about the role of the fathers can be reduced

W-Unintentional observer bias

Stereotypes about what fathers should do cause observer bias → observers see what they expect to see

=> Problem → if bias occurs, the validity of the research could be compromised

W-Fathers contribute less to the economy

Change in paternity leaves, fathers aren’t in employment → - impact on their work places

E.g. having to pay temp staff

=> Problem → negative impact on the economy

W-Findings vary according to methodology used

E.g. longitudinal → fathers have distinct role in child development, involving play

HOWEVER, if so then we’d expect children w/o father to grow up diff but they don’t

=> Problem → question act fathers’ role = unanswered

Animal studies

There’s biological continuity btw animals & human

More ethical than upon human

Lorenz -Aim

To observe the formation of attachment in Greylag Geese

Lorenz - Method

Lab study

Lorenz-Procedure

2 groups:

* Control: 1/2 under mother → 1st thing they see was their mother
* Ex: 1/2 in an incubator & 1st thing they see was Lorenz

\

Lorenz-Results

Incubator geese → followed L around

L marked 2 groups & place them tat w/ the mom & himself => Goslings divided, 1 gap followed the com, 1 gap followed him

=> L=imprinted parent

Lorenz-Conclusion

Animals imprint a mental image of 1st moving object they see within hrs of being born => attachment is instinctive

S-Guiton (Lorenz)

Leghorn chicks were exposed to yellow rubber glove that fed them => glove became imprinted

=> Support young animal are born w/ a predisposition to imprint on any moving object present in critical period (CP)

W-Difficult to generalise (AR)

Humans & animals diff

E.g.many human behaviours are governed by conscious decision unlike animals

=> Problem → can’t assume humans & animals form attachment in a same way => more research needed

Harlow - Aim

To test the learning theory of attachment (attachment are formed primarily through food)

Harlow-Method

Lab

Harlow-Sample

8 baby Rhesus monkeys

Harlow-Procedure

2 wire mothers: - Cloth(no milk) & wire (w/milk)

Recorded the amount of time spend w/ each mother

Monkey were frightened to test mother preference during stress

Harlow-Results

165 days observation

All 8 spend most time w/ the cloth mother & reach over to the wire mother for food

Play w/ new object → they often kept 1 for on the cloth mother for maybe reassurance

Harlow-Conclusion

Contact comfort was more importance than food for monkey

=> Attachment concerns emotional security more than food

S-High control over variable (H)

Controlled setting of a lab → control EV

E.g. time each monkey allow to spend w/ wire mother was controlled

=> Positive → high internal validity

W- Counter argument (H)

Criticised for using diff heads on each mothers

Cloth → head more appealing to infant monkeys => confounding results = invalid

W-Ethical issues (H)

Lasting emotional harm for monkeys→ diff to form relationship w/ peers => lack of protection form harm (under great psychological stress that wouldn’t experience in normal lives)

=> Problem→ against ethical code of conduct

W-Counter argument (H)

Monkeys is similar enough to human → able to generalise findings

=>H’ s study was important enough to justify the ethical issue

Learning Theory

Attachment are learned rather than innate

Classical conditioning (association)

Food (UCS) → Pleasure (UCR)

Caregivers don’t produce a pleasure respond → NR

The caregiver provides food so the child associates her w/ pleasure

Caregiver (CS) → Pleasure (CR)

Overtime, food giver becomes a source of pleasure even if they don’t provide food

\

Operant conditioning (Reinforcement)

If behaviour is positively reinforced, more likely to repeat

Positive reinforcement:

* The child cries when hungry → caregivers feed the child → child repeats this behaviour

Negative reinforcement:

* Child crying distress the caregivers → Feed the child stops the crying → Repeats this behaviour

Child & caregiver learn to mutually reinforce each other, strengthening their attachment

W-Harlow (LT)

Found that when monkeys placed in a cage w/ cloth mother(no food) & wire mother(w/ food) → spend most time w/ cloth mother

Value comfort over food

=> Problem → suggests LT is inaccurate as monkeys should have attached to the wire instead as food = pleasure

W-Lorenz (LT)

Newborns imprint on the 1st moving object they see → allows them to be close w/ source of food & protection

L’s study supports this → geese followed him everywhere as him became imprinted parents

=> Problem => suggests attachment is innate as infants were too young to learn anything at that stage

W-Schaffer & Emerson (LT)

Infants in Glasgow had many attachments - not always most attached to food givers

Multiple attachment & sensitivity were more important than food

=> Problem → suggests LT doesn’t explain why human children attach

W-Tronick (T)

African tribe - the Efe: infants looked after & breastfed by diff women in the tribe

F: At 6 months, the infant still showed PA to their biological mothers

=> Problem → LT would expect infants to attached to food giver => LT is an inaccurate explanation

S-Scientifc & plausible explanation

LT can explain how humans develop many behaviours in response to environment

E.g. phobias develop when we learn to associate certain situation w/ danger

=> Positive → suggests leaning may play similar role in attachment as we do learn through assocaition

\

Bowlby’s Monotrpic Theory

All infants are innately programmed to form an attachment from birth

\

Attachment genes (AG)

Attachment is a biological process & infants are born w/ attachment genes → programme them exhibit social releasers

Social releasers

Behaviours that increase the infant chances of receiving care (clinging, crying, smiling)

Ensure the infant stays close to caregiver who feed & protect them

Adaptive

AG drives parents to provide car as this is adaptive → increases chances of one’s genes continuing)

Attachment = 2 way process

Critical period

6 months & 2 1/2 years

Infants who don’t have the opportunity to form an attachment during this => diff to form attachment later on

Monotropy

the drive to form 1 attachment w/ 1 relationship (mothers) is of special significance

Internal working model

Attachment template for later relationships w/ others

\\1st attachment is crucial (e.g loving child-mother relationship => loving future relationships)

Continuity hypothesis

Internal working model affects parenting styles

People tend to base their parenting style on their experiences of being parented

=> Explain why children from functional families tend to have similars families themselves

S-Lorenz (B)

Newborns imprint on the 1st moving object they see → allows them to be close w/ source of food & protection

L’s study supports this → geese followed him everywhere as him became imprinted parents

=> Positive → shows attachment is innate as infants were too young to learn anything

S- Hazen & Shaver (B)

Love quiz: adult romantic & childhood relationship w/ parents

F: strong correlation btw childhood attachment type & adult relationship

→ Children follow relationship template into later life

=> Positive → supports internal working model allows infants to form an attachment template (continue to adulthood)

S - Tronick (B)

African tribe - the Efe: infants looked after & breastfed by diff women in the tribe

F: At 6 months, the infant still showed PA to their biological mothers

=> Positive → support infants will have monotropic bond w/ their mother despite interacting w/ others

W-Schaffer & Emerson (B)

Infants in Glasgow have many attachments

Although mothers are usually the main one, often father was the mail attachment

→ Attachments could be form w/ many diff ppl

=> Problem → monotropy predicts the mother should be the main attachment figure not the father

W-Critical period (B)

Rutter: attachment isn’t impossible to form after CP

More accurate term:' ‘sensitive period’ - although this is an important window of time, bonds still can be formed outside

=> Problem → B maybe overly negative about the chance of healthy development after early deprivation

Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (SS)

Aim to assess individual diff in attachment by using SS

SS-Sample

106 middle class American infants (12-18 months)

SS-Procedure

Observed w/ mothers in lab over a sequence of of 8 episodes

Mother & stranger take turn to enter the room, interact w/ the child & leave the room

Observe 4 behaviours in infants

\

SS-4 behaviours

Separation anxiety - reaction to caregiver leaving

Reunion behaviour - reaction when caregiver return

Stranger anxiety - reaction to stranger

Exploration behaviour - Child’s willingness to explore their environment

Insecure Avoidant

22%

SA: no/few signs of distress when mom leaves

RB: ignores/avoids mom on her return & doesn’t seek contact

SA: easily comforted by stranger

Willing to explore

=> Caregivers are indifferent to infants’ needs

Securely Attached

66%

SA: distress when mom leaves

RB: approaches mom & easily comforted - show joy

SA: happy w/ stranger when mom presents but can’t be comforted by stranger when mom leaves

Keen to explore

Distress caused by absence of mum

=> Caregivers are sensitive to infants’ needs

Insecure Resistant

12%

SA: very distressed when mom leaves

RB: may go to may but can’t be comforted & may reject contact/comfort

SA: extreme, not willing to interact w/ stranger

Not willing to explore

Distress caused by presence of stranger

=> Caregivers are inconsistent, sometimes rejecting sometimes over sensitive

SS-Conclusion

The sensitivity of caregiver had a significant impact on attachment type of infants

W-Lacks ecological validity

Artificial setting of lab→ not reflect real life behaviours

E.g children may behave diff when in SS than they would at home => may be judged inaccurately

=> Problem → findings can’t be generalised to real life attachment behaviours

S-Easy to replicate cross culturally

Controlled & standardised methodology

→ Possible to used in wide range of culture

E.g. the same setting & methodology is replicated in Japan

=> Positive → methodology is an useful tool has demonstrated variations both btw & within cultures

W-Ignore the father

Findings only form observation of children-mother relationship => no father

→ Inaccurate view of child’s attachment type as they can be insecure to mother but secure to father

=> Problem → can’t be generalised the results to other attachment figures

W-Ethical issues

Cause mild distress to infants → unacceptable

E.g many infants cried showing clearly their distressing episode 6

=> Problem → against ethical code of conduct

HOWEVER → SS adhere to ethical conduct as the situation is no more disturbing than real life

W-Classification system doesn’t fit all infants

Children in SS showed behaviour what was inconsistent w/ the 3 styles

→4th type: Disorganised Attachment

=> Problem → suggests study was unsuccessful at classifying all infants

W-Demand characteristics

Mums know act the observation → behave unnaturally

E.g. behave more sensitively towards the child than they normally do → infants behave diff too

=> Problem → lower internal validity

Cultural Variations

Diff cultures raise their children diff → affect children’s behaviours

Researches → see if diff parenting leads to diff attachment types

Van Ijzendoorn

Aim to use SS methodology to test whether there’re inter-cultural differences & intra-cultural differences in attachment types

Intra-cultural differences

Differences btw the same culture

Inter-cultural differences

Differences btw different cultures

Ijzendoorn-Procedure

Meta analysis of findings from 32 studies in 8 countries

\

Ijzendoorn-Findings

Inter-cultural difference were small

Secure attachment was the most common

Insecure avoidant were the next most common, except in Israel & Japan (collectivist)

Insecure resistant least common

Intra-cultural diff were x1.5 greater than inter-cultural diff

\

Ijzendoorn-Conclusion

Global pattern similar w/ the US

Secure attachment as a norm

Intra-cultural diff > Inter-culturally diff

Takahashi-Sample

60 middle class Japanese infants & their mothers in SS

Takahashi-FIndings

Similar rates of secure attachment as Ainsworth did

No evidence of insecure avoidant but high lvl of resistant type (32%)

Infants very distressed when alone → 90% of cases were stop at this point

Extreme separation anxiety

=> Traditional Japanese child rearing involves the mother rarely leaving the child

Takahashi-Conclusion

Japanese children show distress when left alone or w/ stranger - indicators of insecure resistant attachment

S-Bee

Meta analysis shows most countries have similar pattern of attachment types

Secure attachment as most common & the rest split btw insecure avoidant & resistant

=> Supports that secure attachment by A is the best form of attachment for healthy social & emotional development

S-Easy to replicate cross culturally

Controlled & standardised methodology 

→ Possible to used in wide range of culture

E.g. the same setting & methodology is replicated in Japan

=> Positive → methodology is an useful tool has demonstrated variations both btw & within cultures

W-Ethnocentric

Principle behind SS: behaviour of all children in all cultures can be interpreted from the same POV

E.g in Germany, insecure avoidant behaviour reflects the effects of encouragement towards independence in the child

=> Problem → making cross cultural comparisons using SS may lack validity

W-Ijzendoorn’s meta analysis is biased

Unequal numbers of studies from each country → results could be more representative of some countries than others

E.g. 28 studies in USA and 1 study in China

=> Problem → meta analysis used may not accurately reflect attachment type across diff cultures

W-Ethical issues

When replicated SS cross culturally, some children became extremely distressed when separated

E.g. T’s study, infants’ responses to separation was so extreme that for 90% of infants, the study was stop at this point

=> Problem → these studies didn’t protect children from harm & go against ethical code of conduct

\