ATTACHMENT SUMMARY

According to Schaffer, what is attachment?

A close, emotional bond between 2 people, characterised by mutual affection and a desire to maintain closeness

What is the primary care giver (PCG)/primary attachment figure (PAF)?

The parent or carer whom the infant first attaches. This is normally the person who is most responsible for their care (most often the mother)

According to Ainsworth, what does the primary attachment figure act as?

A secure base: the infant demonstrates confidence whilst the primary care giver is present because of the security they provide

According to Ainsworth, a secure attachment develops through what?

Sensitive responsiveness: this is where the primary care giver responds consistently and sensitive to the infant's needs

What are the 4 key behaviours infants show when they are securely attached?

1. Maintaining proximity
2. Separation anxiety
3. Joy on reunion
4. Stranger anxiety

What is maintaining proximity?

-infant seeks to be physically close to their primary attachment figure
-they seek involvement by wanting to include their carer in their activities (or vice versa)

What is separation anxiety?

Intense distress shown by the infant when the primary attachment figure is not present

What is joy on reunion?

-securely attached infants show visible pleasure on being reunited with their primary attachment figure after a period of separation
-they are easily comforted and will quickly resume play when then primary attachment figure is close

What is stranger anxiety?

Intense distress shown by the infant in response to strangers

What was the 1964 study by Schaffer and Emerson?

Stages of attachment: Glasgow babies

What experimental method, experimental design and sampling method did Schaffer and Emerson use?

-naturalistic, participant, overt observations + structured interviews
-repeated measures
-volunteer sampling

Schaffer and Emerson procedure?

-60 infants and their mothers from a working class area of Glasgow were studied
-infants were aged between 5-23 weeks old at the start of the investigation
-the child's development was assessed in the infant's home every 4 weeks until the child was one, and then again aged 18 months

Determined the strength of their attachment using 2 measures:
-separation anxiety: the distress shown by the infant when the primary care giver was not present (e.g. the infant's reaction was observed when the mother left the room)
-stranger anxiety: the distress shown by the infant when a stranger was present (e.g. the infant's reaction observed when the experimenter was close)

-structured interviews asked mothers to rate their infant's response to various situations (e.g. when the infant was put down in their cot or left with a babysitter), on a 4 point scale, from 0 ('no protest shown') to 3 ('cries loudly every time')

Findings from Schaffer and Emerson's study?

-separation anxiety: by 6-8 months most infants showed signs of separation anxiety suggesting they had formed an attachment
-stranger anxiety: generally stranger anxiety developed one month after the development of separation anxiety
-primary attachment: an attachment was first formed with the parent or carer who was most responsible for the infant's care -\> in roughly 65% infants the primary attachment was first formed with the mother, in 3% infants the PA was formed with the father, in 30% cases infants formed attachments with the mother and father simultaneously
-multiple attachments: most infants had formed multiple attachments (with other family members are carers) by the age of 18 months

Conclusions from Schaffer and Emerson's study?

-infants show a consistent pattern of attachment behaviour that is similar in all children: attachment is first formed around 7 months old (between 6-8 months) with the development of separation anxiety, primary attachment generally forms with the parent or carer who is most responsible for the infant's care (most often the mother), multiple attachments form after the primary attachment by 18 months in most children

Strength of Schaffer and Emerson's study: high external validity

A strength of Schaffer and Emerson's study is that it has high external validity; meaning that the results of the study can be generalised to wider settings. This is because S+E's study was carried out in the babies' own homes and most observations were done by the parents during ordinary activities. This therefore means that the behaviour of the babies is unlikely to be affected by the presence of the observers and therefore they would have shown natural behaviour which means we can more easily generalise the findings to other real life settings.

Limitation of Schaffer and Emerson's study: biased sample used

A limitation of S+E's study is that the sample used is biased to a particular group and time, meaning that the study lacks population validity reducing the external validity. This is because the research focused on 60 babies and their carers from a working class area of Glasgow over 50 years ago. Child rearing practices vary from one culture to another and from one time to another meaning that we are unable to generalise the findings of this study to other social and historical contexts.

Limitation of Schaffer and Emerson's study: may be problems with assessing multiple attachments

A limitation of Schaffer and Emerson's stages of attachment is that there may be problems with assessing multiple attachments. This is because the distress a baby shows when an individual leaves the room does not necessarily signify an attachment to that person. For example Bowlby (1969) said that children may become upset when a playmate leaves the room but that this doesn't signify an attachment to that person. This is a problem for the stages of attachment that Schaffer and Emerson identified as it is not clear how we should distinguish between behaviour that is shown towards secondary attachment figures and behaviour shown towards playmates.

Limitation of Schaffer and Emerson's study: conflicting evidence

A limitation of Schaffer and Emerson's stages of attachment is that there is conflicting evidence on the timing of multiple attachments. Bowlby (1969) argues that most babies form attachments to a single main caregiver before they are able to develop multiple attachments. However, other psychologists whose research focuses on collectivist cultures where multiple caregivers are the norm, such as van IJzendoorn et al. Argue that babies can form multiple attachments from the outset. Such cultures are called collectivist because families work together in everything including producing good and raising children. This conflicting evidence means we cannot be certain when children form multiple attachments.

Limitation of the stages of attachment: problem with measuring the asocial stage

A limitation of the stages of attachment is there is a problem with a measuring the asocial stage. S+E describe the first few weeks of a baby's life as the asocial stage, despite the fact that many important interactions take place during this time. The problem with studying this stage is that very young babies have poor coordination and are fairly immobile; therefore it is difficult to make judgements about them based on observations of their behaviour as there is not much to observe. It mat be that the babies' feelings and cognitions are highly social but just that they appear to be asocial because of the flawed methods used to measure this.

What did Schaffer and Emerson's research show?

That all infants demonstrate a consistent pattern of attachment behaviour that is similar in all children. They identified 4 stages of attachment

What are the 4 stages of attachment?

Asocial, indiscriminate, specific, multiple

What age is the asocial stage of attachment? (Stage 1)

0-7 weeks

What are the attachment behaviours in the asocial stage?

-initially infants show similar responses to both people and objects
-very rapidly, infants being to shown a bias towards human-like stimuli by attending more to faces and eyes
-they quickly learn to discriminate between familiar + unfamiliar people through smell and voice

What age is the indiscriminate attachment stage? (Stage 2)

7 weeks to 7 months

What are the attachment behaviours in the indiscriminate attachment stage?

-infants become more sociable, preferring people to objects
-they begin to distinguish between different people
-infants do not show signs of separation or stranger anxiety at this stage

What age is the specific attachment (discriminate) stage? (Stage 3)

7 months onwards

What are the attachment behaviours of the specific attachment stage?

-infants develop a specific attachment with their primary caregiver
-this stage starts with the development of separation anxiety (e.g. protest when primary care giver leaves the room)
-stranger anxiety develops one month after development of separation anxiety

What age is the multiple attachments stage? (Stage 4)

10-11 months onwards

What are the attachment behaviours of the multiple attachment stage?

Infants begin to show attachment behaviours towards several different people, including siblings, grandparents and childminders

'Olivia babysits her niece Grace every Saturday night. Before age of 7 months Grace is happy to be left with Olivia and the 2 enjoy playing games, such as peek-a-boo. When Grace is 7 months old she starts to scream and protest when her mother leaves her with Olivia. Grandma says that Grace will soon grow out of it. By 9 months Grace is quite happy to be left with Olivia again.'

Use your knowledge of the stages of attachment to explain Grace's response to being left with Olivia (4)

Before the age of 7 months, Grace is going through the indiscriminate attachment stage: this is where she is sociable and prefers people to objects, and will not show any signs of stranger or separation anxiety at this time. This explains why at this point Grace is happy to play and socialise with Olivia and is not bothered by her mother going out and leaving them alone. When Grace is 7 months she enters the specific attachment stage, where she will have developed specific attachments to her primary care giver (her mother) and show distress when separated - which explains why she 'screams' and 'protests' when her mother leaves her alone with Olivia. By 9 months, Grace has entered stage 4 and is able to form multiple attachments with several different people including both her mum and Olivia.

What did Schaffer and Emerson's theory suggest about the primary care giver?

-PCG usually the mother + this is who the child first formed an attachment to
-in 3% cases the father was the first person they formed an attachment to
-75% infants had formed an attachment to their father by the time they were 18 months old

What does more recent research show?

The importance of the role of the father in the development of infant attachment behaviour

What has research shown about mothers and fathers?

They provide different types of care, both of which support an infant's development

What do mothers provide to their infant?

-nurturing, affectionate and emotional care
-educational or imaginative play, such as counting or colour games, or dressing up
-a source of comfort when distressed
-caretaking activities such as brushing hair or cleaning teeth

\=this supports infants in their emotional, social and cognitive development

What do fathers provide to their infant?

-although fathers are less likely to provide the type of care more often provided by the mother, fathers do provide: active, physically stimulating, rough and tumble play- such as chasing, wrestling, swinging and bouncing

\=this supports infants in the development of their confidence and their ability to assess risks

PEEL paragraph - the attachment with the father is important

The idea of the role of the father as important in children's development has supporting research from Verissimo (2011) who found that the quality of the attachment between infants and fathers positively correlated with the number of friends a child has at pre-school. The father's attachment seemed to be more important than the mother's attachment in this respect, suggesting that the father has a unique influence of an infant's development.

PEEL paragraph - the attachment with the father is not important

Grossman (2002) found that fathers had an important role in their children's development involving play and stimulation. However, the idea of the role of the father not being important in children's development has supporting research from McCallum and Golombok (2004) who found children in same six or single parent families develop no differently to those in traditional two-parent households. This suggesting that the father is not a unique influence on an infant's development or can be substituted by another 'father figure' who is not necessarily a man.

PEEL paragraph - operationalising the role of the father

Research into the role of the father varies in how it operationalises this role. This means conclusions drawn from different studies must be viewed with caution. This is because some research tries to understand the father as a 'secondary attachment figure' and view it as a unique figure different to the mother, whilst others measure the father as the 'primary attachment figure' which can act as a substitute to the role traditionally played by the mother. Therefore, answering the question 'what is the role of the father' is a complicated one.

PEEL paragraph - implications for the economy

As some research suggests the father does play an important and unique role in the development of infants, there may be implications for the economy. This means government and business may need to make changes to paternity leave and be more flexible when in the working hours of fathers. Indeed the 2015 shared parental leave act means that either the mother, father or adopted parents can share the leave offered to them by law to care for their child rather than this being just 2 weeks for the father. Additionally, fathers may choose to work less than before meaning they will contribute less in taxes meaning the government has less money to fund other services. This shows that changing norms based on existing studies can have wider implications that go beyond the conclusions of research.

What theory did Dollard and Miller produce in 1950?

Learning theory

What did Dollar and Miller suggest about infant-caregiver attachment?

Suggested that it can be explained by learning theory: this is sometimes called a cupboard love approach because it focuses on the importance of a caregiver being seen as a provider of food. Essentially children love whoever feeds them

Dollar + Miller (1950) - classical conditioning infant-caregiver attachment

-learning theory suggests that attachments are learned/initiated through classical conditioning, whereby an infant forms an attachment with the person who feeds them
-they associate the primary caregiver with the pleasure of being fed and will maintain proximity with this person (usually the mother) because of this association

Stages of classical conditioning: infant-caregiver attachment - before conditioning

-infant has an innate primary drive for food (unconditioned stimulus which produces an unconditioned response of pleasure)
-the primary attachment figure is a neutral stimulus because she does not provide any innate pleasure

Food -\> pleasure

Stages of classical conditioning: infant-caregiver attachment - during conditioning

-as the primary attachment figure is always present during feeding, the infant begins to associate her with the pleasure from food

Primary care giver (neutral stimulus) + food (unconditioned stimulus) -\> pleasure (unconditioned response)

Stages of classical conditioning: infant-caregiver attachment - after conditioning

-infant now associates the primary attachment figure with pleasure and is motivated to maintain proximity with her (an attachment behaviour). Separation anxiety develops as a result
-the primary attachment figure has become a conditioned stimulus and the pleasure associated with her becomes its conditioned response

Dollar + Miller: operant conditioning in infant-caregiver attachment

Operant conditioning involves learning to repeat a behaviour or not based on the consequences of it; if a behaviour produces a pleasant consequence then it is likely to be repeated (it has been reinforced). If a behaviour produces unpleasant consequences then it is unlikely to be repeated

How can operant conditioning explain why babies cry for comfort? (Important behaviour in developing an attachment)

-crying usually leads to a response from the caregiver, often in the form of food
-when the caregiver produces the correct response, the crying is reinforced
-the baby will then direct the crying towards the caregiver in anticipation of a comforting response
-the reinforcement is a 2 way process: when the baby is reinforced for crying the caregiver received negative reinforcement as the crying stops (avoiding the unpleasant consequence is negative reinforcement). This mutual reinforcement strengthens the attachment

Attachment as a secondary drive

-learning theory also looks at the concept of drive reduction; hunger can be thought of as a primary drive as this is a biological motivator. We are all motivated to eat to reduce the hunger drive
-Sears et al (1957) suggested that because the caregiver is the person who provides food, the primary drive of hunger becomes associated with them and so they explained attachment as a secondary drive, that is learned through developing an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive

Attachment as a secondary drive - learning theory steps:

Before conditioning:
Food (primary drive, UCS) -\> pleasure (UCR)

During conditioning:
Primary caregiver (NS) + food (UCS) -\> pleasure (UCR)

After conditioning:
Primary caregiver (secondary drive, CS) -\> pleasure (CR)

Limitation of learning theory (Dollard and Miller) - research against the idea of food as the basis of attachment

A limitation of learning theory is that there is research against the idea of food as the basis of attachment from both animal and human studies. Lorenz's geese maintained their attachments regardless of who fed them, whilst Harlow's monkeys attached to a soft cloth mother rather than a wire one who provided food. Schaffer and Emerson's study showed that many babies' primary attachment figure was not the person who fed them. These studies show that attachments do not develop as a result of feeding and so they contradict learning theory because food is not the key element, therefore there is no unconditioned stimulus or primary drive.

Limitation of learning theory - ignores other factors

A limitation of learning theory is that it ignores other factors that are linked to attachment. Research has shown that the quality of attachment is associated with developing reciprocity and interactional synchrony. Other research has shown that the best quality attachments are formed with carers who are sensitive to their infants' signals and then respond appropriately. If attachments developed primarily as a result of feeding, then these interactions would have no purpose and so we would not expect to find relationships between them and the quality of infant-caregiver attachment.

Strength of learning theory - can explain some aspects of attachment

A strength of learning theory is that it can explain some aspects of attachment, including how infants learn through reinforcement. Infants do learn through association and reinforcement but food may not be the most important reinforcer. It is possible that parental attention and responsiveness are more important factors that assist in the formation of attachment, thus supporting the basic principles of learning theory. For example, associations made between the primary caregiver and comfort and social interaction could be part of what builds attachment. This shows even that even though learning theory does not provide a complete explanation of attachment, it still has some value.

Evaluation PEEL: there is a newer learning theory explanation based on SLT...

Hay and Vespa (1988) suggest that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviours e.g. hugging them and other family members. Parents also reward children with approval when they display their own attachment behaviours e.g. that is a lovely smile. Therefore, babies could have learned attachment behaviours as a result of their interactions; this fits with research on the importance of interactional synchrony and reciprocity.

What are the 2 innate behaviours that reinforce the attachment between an infant and primary attachment figure?

Reciprocity and interactional synchrony

What is argued about reciprocity and interactional synchrony?

Argued that these innate behaviours are part of a conscious effort to sustain communication, which help form the attachment between the infant and primary attachment figure

What is reciprocity? (AO1) -\> turn-taking

-refers to the process in which a behaviour is responded to with a corresponding action during an interaction
-infants coordinate their behaviours with caregivers in a kind of conversation
-from birth, babies move in rhythm when interacting with adults as if they are taking turns, as people do when having a conversation
-the responses are not necessarily similar

Why is the basic rhythm or reciprocity important for later interactions?

Because it allows the caregiver to anticipate the babies need and respond appropriately, helping to form an attachment

What is interactional synchrony? (AO1) -\> simultaneous action

-refers to how a parent's and infant's behaviour become finely synchronised; mirroring each other
-infants imitate specific facial and hand gestures to mirror their caregiver: includes mirroring emotions as well as behaviours
-from birth, babies move in synchrony with their caregivers

It has been suggested that interactional synchrony serves a critical role in developmental outcomes in terms of...

Self-regulation, symbol use, and the capacity for empathy

Reciprocity vs interactional synchrony (key characteristics)

Reciprocity: an innate instinct, matched behaviour occurring in turns, used to sustain communication to help form an attachment

Interactional synchrony: an innate instinct, Same behaviour occurring at the same time, used to sustain communication to help form an attachment

PEEL evaluation - evidence for reciprocity (Papousek et al)

Compelling evidence for reciprocity comes from Papousek et al who found that parents in china, America and Germany all used a 'rising tone' ("caregiverese") to show an infant that it was their turn in their interaction. As this evidence was shown cross-culturally, in many different cultures, it suggests that a shared sense of timing may be an innate ability to aid the formation of attachments

PEEL evaluation - evidence for interactional synchrony (Melzoff and Moore)

Strong evidence for interactional synchrony comes from Melzoff and Moore, who found that infants aged 2-3 weeks mimicked three adult facial expressions and one hand movement (as assessed by independent observers). This suggests that imitation may be an innate ability to aid the formation of attachments.

PEEL evaluation - evidence for interactional synchrony (Isabella et al 1989)

There is evidence to support the importance of interactional synchrony, from Isabella et al (1989). They observed 30 mothers and their babies to assess the degree of synchrony and the quality of the attachment between them. They found that high levels of synchrony were associated with a better quality mother-infant attachment.

Strength of research into infant-caregiver interactions - uses well-controlled procedures

A strength of research into infant-caregiver interactions is that the research uses well-controlled procedures. This is because interactions between infants and their caregivers are usually filmed, often from multiple angles, meaning very fine details of the behaviour can be recorded and analysed later. Also, babies don't know they are being observed so their behaviour does not change in response to observation. This is a strength of this line or research because it means the studies are high in validity.

Strength of research into infant-caregiver interactions - research findings valuable for society

A strength of research into infant-caregiver interactions is that the research is potentially valuable to society. The identification of interactional synchrony and reciprocity as important foundations in the formation of high quality attachments could have practical applications that benefit society. For example, Crotwell et al (2013) found that a 10 minute parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) improved interactional synchrony in 20 low-income mothers and their pre-school infants compared to a control group. The findings suggest that research on interactional synchrony could lead to valuable methods for improving and developing infant-caregiver interactions (particularly with high risk groups).

Limitation of research into infant-caregiver interactions - problems observing infants

A limitation is that it is hard to know what is happening when observing infants. This is because what is being observed is merely hand movements or changes in expression and it is difficult to be sure what is happening from the infant's perspective and whether their imitation is conscious or deliberate. Feldman (2012) points out that interactional synchrony and reciprocity simply describe behaviours that occur at the same time and tell us nothing about their purpose for the infant. This means we cannot be certain that behaviours seen in caregiver-infant interactions have a special meaning.

Limitation of research into mother-infant interactions - socially sensitive

A limitation of research into mother-infant interactions is that it is socially sensitive. This is because it suggests that children may be disadvantaged by certain child-rearing practices. Specifically, mothers who return to work shortly after a child is born restrict the opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony which Isabella et al (1989) has shown to be important. They found levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant attachment. This suggests that mothers should not return to work so soon, which has obvious socially sensitive implications.

What 2 key studies (animal studies) provide evidence against the learning theory of attachments?

Harlow's rhesus monkeys + Lorenz's geese

Why do we study animals in psychology?

Psychologists study animals because it is more permissible to conduct certain types of research with animals than with humans

What was the aim of Harlow's 1958 research study?

Harlow wanted to study the mechanisms by which newborn rhesus monkeys bond with their mothers: testing the learning theory by comparing attachment behaviours.

What would the learning theory predict about Harlow's study vs what Harlow actually found?

LT: predicts that the monkey will retreat to the 'mother' that provides food (infant monkey would spend most time with wire mock mother particularly when scared, because of the pleasure associated with food)
Harlow found: the monkey actually seeks the cloth 'mother' for protection

What was the procedure of Harlow's 1958 study?

-16 baby monkeys were taken from their mothers at birth and reared in isolation
-they were placed in a cage with 2 'mock-mother monkeys': a wire mock mother & a cloth mock mother
-in 1 condition the wire mother dispensed milk to feed the monkeys whilst in the other, the milk was dispensed by the cloth mother
-the time spent with each mock mother was recorded and the behaviour of the monkey was observed when it was deliberately frightened by a toy drumming bear placed in the cage (to test for mother preference during times of stress).

What were the findings of Harlow's 1958 study?

-on average, the infant monkeys spent 17-18 hours per day clinging to the cloth mock mother, only going to the wire mock mother to feed (on average less than 1 hour per day)
-the baby monkeys cuddled the soft monkey, preferring that to the wire one and sought comfort from the cloth mother when they were frightened, regardless of which 'mother' dispensed the milk. This demonstrates that contact comfort was more important to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour

What were the conclusions from Harlow's 1958 study?

-Harlow's research provides strong evidence against learning theory as an explanation of attachments: contrary to the predictions of learning theory, the behaviour of infant monkeys suggests that attachments are not formed through an association between the primary attachment figure and food
-Harlow's research provides strong evidence for the importance of contact comfort in the development of attachments: the behaviour of infant monkeys suggests that attachments are at least partly explained through 'contact comfort' (Harlow) or 'sensitive responsiveness' (Ainsworth)

How is Schaffer and Emerson's study further evidence against learning theory of attachments?

Their study of 60 infants and their mothers from a W/C area of Glasgow found that the 30% of infant formed attachments with their mother and father simultaneously, irrespective of who fed them. This again suggests that the secondary drive theory is not valid, and attachments do not form through learning.

What is the long term impact of Harlow's research?

Harlow found that the monkeys who experienced this material deprivation experienced issues into adulthood. That monkeys who were raised with the wire mother were the most dysfunctional, however, those raised with the cloth mother equally did not develop normal social behaviour: aggressive, less sociable, bred less often (unskilled at mating)

As mothers, some deprived monkeys neglected their young and others attacked their children, even killing them in some cases.

Harlow also conducted that there was a critical period for attachment, suggesting that a mother had to be introduced to the monkey within 90 days for an attachment to form. If this did not occur then the formation of an attachment was impossible and irreversible damage would be caused to the monkeys.

Limitation of Harlow's study - ethical issue of harm

A significant limitation of Harlow's study os the harm caused to the monkeys. Rhesus monkeys are similar enough to humans for us to generalise the findings, therefore the suffering they experienced could be assumed to be human like and the monkeys have the right not to experience this. Harlow was aware of the suggesting he was causing the monkeys and referred to the wire mothers as 'iron maidens' named after a medieval torture device. On the other hand. The experiment can be justified because of the contributions it has made to our understanding of attachments and how to care for human (and primate) infants.

Limitation of Harlow's research - difficulties generalising

A limitation of Harlow's research is that there are problems with generalising the findings from monkeys (animals) to humans. Although monkeys are clearly more similar to humans than Lorenz's geese, they are not humans. For example, human babies develop speech-like communication ('babbling'). This may influence the formation of attachments. Therefore, there is disagreement on the extent to which studies of non-human primates can be generalised to humans.

Strength of Harlow's research - has practical applications

A strength of Harlow's research is that it has practical applications, which is when research has led to real-world benefit. This is because it has helped social workers to understand risk factors in child abuse and therefore intervene to prevent this (Howe, 1998). It has also highlighted the importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes in the wild. This suggests that Harlow's research is valuable as it has important real world benefits.

What was the procedure of Lorenz's 1952 key study? (Before hatching)

-Before hatching, graylag geese eggs were divided into 3 conditions: one group was hatched in the presence of their natural mother (MOTHER), a second group was hatched in the presence of Lorenz (LORENZ), a third group was hatched individually in isolation (ISOLATION)

What were the findings of Lorenz's study? (After hatching)

-Mother: the group hatched in the presence of their natural mother immediately followed and continued to follow their natural mother
-Lorenz: the group hatched in the presence of Lorenz immediately followed and continued to follow Lorenz
-Isolation: the group hatched in isolation did not follow anyone or anything. This behaviour continued even after their natural mother was reintroduced

-After several variations, Lorenz found that this process (of attachment) only occurred during the first 20 hours after hatching (a critical period)

What were the conclusions of Lorenz's study? (Imprinting + critical period)

Imprinting: Lorenz proposed a simple attachment process called imprinting. This causes infant birds to follow the first animal they see moving after hatching (normally the mother). The ability to imprint must be innate because it occurred immediately after hatching.

Critical period: he suggested that imprinting occurred during a critical period. This is a time frame during which attachment behaviour is most likely to develop. If prevented during this time, the attachment behaviour is unlikely to occur at all. In geese the critical period for imprinting is approximately 20 hours.

What is imprinting?

An innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the mother, which takes place during the first few hours after birth/hatching

What is the critical period?

The time frame during which attachment behaviour is most likely to develop

Strength of Lorenz's study - supporting research for the concept of imprinting

There is research to support the concept of imprinting. Lorenz's concept of imprinting has been replicated in studies with other birds, for example, Guiton (1966) found that chickens exposed to yellow rubber gloves for feeding, became imprinted on the gloves and would try to mate with them as adults. This shows that young animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object present in the critical window of development.

Limitation of Lorenz's study - some of his observations and conclusions have been questioned

A limitation of Lorenz's research is that some more recent researchers have questioned some of Lorenz's conclusions. For example, Guiton (1966) found that chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves tried to mate with them as adults, as Lorenz predicted. However, with experience they learned to mate with their own kind. This study suggests that the effects of imprinting on mating behaviour are not as long lasting as Lorenz believed.

Limitation of Lorenz's study - difficulties with generalising findings from animal studies to humans

Although some of Lorenz's findings have influenced our understanding of human development, there is a problem with generalising findings from birds to humans. The mammalian attachment system is quite different from that in birds. For example, mammalian mothers show more emotional attachment to their young than birds do. This means that is is not appropriate to generalise Lorenz's ideas to humans.

Outline one animal study of attachment. In your answer include what the researcher(s) did and what they found. (6 marks)

In Harlow's key study, infant monkeys were taken from their mothers at birth and reared in isolation. They were placed in a cage with 2 'mock-mother monkeys': a wire mock mother with a teat to provide milk (food) and a cloth mock other which more closely resembled a monkey and provided 'contact comfort'. The time spent with each mock mother was recorded and the behaviour of the monkey was observed when it was deliberately frightened by a toy drumming bear placed in the cage. Learning theory predicts that the infant monkey would spend most time with the wire mock mother; particularly when scared, because of the pleasure associated with food. Harlow found that on average, the infant monkeys spent 17-18 hours per day clinging to the cloth mock mother, only going to the wire mother to feed (on average less than 1 hour per day). When distressed, the monkey would only seek comfort from cloth mock mother.

Describe Lorenz's research related to attachment (4 marks)

Before hatching, graylag geese eggs were divided into 3 conditions: one group was hatched in the presence of their natural mother, a 2nd group was hatched in the presence of Lorenz, a 3rd group was hatched individually in isolation. After several variations, Lorenz found that this process of attachment only occurred during the 1st 20 hours after hatching (critical period).

Outline what animal studies have shown about attachment (4 marks)

Lorenz proposed a simple attachment process called imprinting. This is where infant birds follow the first moving object after hatching (usually the mother) and this is innate. Lorenz suggested that imprinting occurred during a critical period which in geese was approximately 20 hours. If imprinting is prevented during this time, attachment behaviour is unlikely to occur at all. Harlow's research provided evidence against learning theory as an explanation of attachments as the behaviour of the infant monkeys suggested that attachments are not formed through associations between the primary attachment figure and food. Harlow's research provides strong evidence for the importance of contact comfort in the development of attachments.

What is Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachments?

This is the dominant theory of attachment in psychology. Bowlby rejected learning theory, proposing instead, an evolutionary explanation. In the same way as imprinting in animals, Bowlby argued that the ability to form attachments is innate. His theory is based on 5 concepts

What are the 5 concepts Bowlby's monotropic theory is based on?

1. Attachments have evolved
2. Social releasers
3. Monotropy
4. Critical period
5. Internal working model

Concept - attachments have evolved

-the ability to form an attachment is innate
-attachment behaviour has evolved through natural selection because it aids survival e.g. by maintaining proximity (facilitated by separation anxiety), an infant is more likely to survive because of the protection provided by the primary attachment figure

Concept - social releasers: what are they?

Innate infant behaviours such as smiling or crying, that cause the primary caregiver to respond

Concept - social releasers: what did Bowlby say about them?

-said babies are born with a set of these 'cute' behaviours to encourage attention from adults
-primary caregivers who respond sensitively (with sensitive responsiveness; ainsworth) help create a secure internal working model in the infant

Concept - social releasers: attachment is a what??

Reciprocal process: both PCG and infant have an innate predisposition to become attached and social releasers trigger that response

Concept - monotropy: what is it?

Although an infant forms multiple relationships, they will form one attachment that is more important than all others \= monotropy

Concept - monotropy: when does it occur?

Occurs with the primary caregiver - the person who cares for the infant the most (usually the mother)

Concept - monotropy: what does the law of continuity state?

That the more constant a child's care is, the better the quality of their attachment

Concept - monotropy: what does the law of accumulated separation state?

That the effects of being separated from the PCG add up and that it is best to avoid this