Attachment

Define attachment

emotional tie between 2 people, usually a primary caregiver and a child

the relationship is usually reciprocal - 2 way relationship that develops over time

How does attachment begin?

* with interactions between a baby and their caregiver
* responsiveness of the caregiver is key

Why is it important that babies have meaningful interactions with their carers from the start?

* important for social development
* important for the development of a good quality attachment

state two examples of meaningful interactions

* reciprocity
* interactional synchrony

Reciprocity

* '“turn taking” activity - conversation
* when each person responds to another and elicits a response from them
* e.g. smiling

What does research into reciprocity suggest?

* Feldman and Eidelman


* that babies have an alert phase - they signal that they are ready for interaction


* mother’s pick up and respond to this 2/3 of the time
* however, this can also be affected by external factors e.g. stress

what did Feldman find in 2007?

from around 3 months old, reciprocity inc in frequency

What had research into reciprocity told us about the baby’s role?

* traditionally babies have been seen as passive recipients of care
* however, it seems that both babies and caregivers can take an active role
* Brazelton et al - a dance

interactional synchrony

two people are said to be synchronised when they carry out the same action simultaneously

* Temporal coordination of micro level social behaviour (Feldman)
* babies imitate their caregivers
* **when the mother and baby act in such a way that their actions and emotions mirror one another**

interactional synchrony - research - Meltzoff + Moore 1977

* observed beginning of interactional synchrony in infants as young as 2 weeks old
* adults displayed 2 of 3 facial expressions or gestures and the infants reaction was filmed and identified
* there was a correlation between adult behaviour and infant response

Interactional synchrony - research - Isabella et al 1989

* Assessed the degree of synchrony in 20 mother and their infants
* also assessed the quality of those attachments
* they found that better quality synchrony was associated with better quality attachments (e.g. the emotional intensity of the attachment)

AO3 - STRENGTH - Filmed observations

Filmed in a lab, this is good because;

* other activities that might distract the baby are controlled
* observations can be recorded and analysed later - therefore it is unlikely that the researchers will miss seeing key behaviours
* more than one observer can record data + establish inter-rater reliability of observations - inc reliability
* babies don’t know that they are being observed - natural behaviour doesn’t change - no demand characteristics - advantage compared to an overt observation
* THEREFORE, the data collected in such research should have good reliability and validity

AO3 - LIMITATION - difficulty observing babies

It is hard to interpret baby’s behaviour

* lack of coordination
* immobile
* observations are mainly of hand movements or subtle changes in expression - hard to know what is going on/ what the meaning is and what is going on from the babies perspective
* THEREFORE, we can’t be sire that the behaviours observed in caregiver infant interactions have any special meaning

AO3 - LIMITATION - developmental importance

Observing behaviour doesn’t tell us its developmental importance

* Feldman - synchrony and reciprocity re just names given to patterns of behaviour
* they clearly exist but are not particularly useful in understanding development because we don’t know the purpose of these behaviours
* observational research alone can’t tell us whether they are important for an infant’s development

COUNTER - ISABELLA ET AL

* better quality synchrony was associated with better quality attachment

Schaffer and Emerson 1964 - intro

* investigated the development of early attachment
* particularly at the age at which they develop their emotional intensity - also who they direct the emotional intensity at

Schaffer and Emerson - method

* working class
* 60 babies
* babies and mothers were visited at home once per month for 1 year and then again at 18 months
* asked mothers about protest in 7 separation situations - e.g. mother leaving the room (separation anxiety) + stranger anxiety

Schaffer and Emerson findings

* 25 - 32 weeks - 50% showed separation anxiety towards a particular adult - mostly towards the most responsive adult
* 40 weeks - most had developed specific attachments and some had multiple attachments

Schaffer’s stages of attachment

1. Asocial stage - first few weeks
2. indiscriminate attachment - 2-6 months
3. specific attachment - 7-12 months
4. multiple attachment - 1+ years

Asocial stage (1)

* first few weeks
* similar behaviour towards objects and humans
* recognising and forming bonds
* some preference for familiar adults
* happier in the presence of other humans

Indiscriminate stage (2)

* 2-7 months
* more social behaviour
* preference for people and recognise familiar faces
* accept comfort from any adult
* no stranger anxiety

Specific attachment (3)

* 7-12 months
* stranger and separation anxiety
* specific attachment with a primary caregiver - looks to them for security and protection
* show joy when the primary caregiver returns + comforted by them as well

Multiple attachments (4)

* 1 year +
* attachment behaviour is expanded to familiar adults
* formation of secondary attachments - mostly a month or 2 after primary attachment formed
* by 1 year most infants had formed secondary attachments

AO3 - STRENGTH - external validity of Schaffer’s research

* one strength is that it had good external validity
* most of the observations were made by parents during everyday activities and reported to the researchers
* the alternative would have been to research at present to record observations - this might have distracted the babies or made them feel anxious
* this means it is highly likely that the pts behaved naturally whilst being observed and that the results can be generalised to everyday situations

AO3 COUNTERPOINT to external validity of Schaffer’s research

* on the other hand there are issue with asking the mothers to be observers as they are unlikely to be objective
* they might have been biased in terms of what they noticed and what they reported, e.g. they might not have noticed when their baby was showing signs of anxiety or may have mis-remembered it
* this means that even if babies behave naturally their behaviour may not have been accurately recorded
* there is also a possibility that the information given to the researchers could be biased due to social desirability - the mother doesn’t want to seem like her attachment with her child is less that what it ‘should’ be - may exaggerate attachment behaviours - no objective data

AO3 - LIMITATION - problems with studying the asocial stage

* one limitation of Schaffer and Emerson’s stages is the validity of the measures used to assess attachment in the asocial stage
* young babies lack coordination and are fairly immobile - if babies less than 2 months old felt anxiety in everyday situations they might have displayed this in quite a subtle, heard-to-observe ways
* this may have made it difficult for mothers to observe and report back to researchers on signs of anxiety and attachment in this age group
* this means that babies may actually be quite social, but because of flawed methods they appear to be asocial

AO3 - STRENGTH - RWA Schaffer’s stages

* Another strength of Schaffer and Emerson’s stages is that they have practical application to day care
* In the asocial and indiscriminate attachment stages day care is likely to be straightforward as babies can be comforted by any skilled adult
* However, Schaffer and Emerson’s research tells us that day care, especially starting day care with an unfamiliar adult may be problematic during the specific attachment stage - separation and stranger anxiety
* This means that parents use of daycare can be planned using Schaffer and Emerson’s findings

Role of the father, What was research like previously?

* anyone who takes on the role of the main male caregiver - this isn’t necessarily the biological father
* **often neglected in attachment research**
* do babies attach to fathers?
* do fathers play a distinctive role?
* can fathers be primary caregivers?

Do babies attach to their fathers?

* **Schaffer and Emerson 1964**
* found that most infants attach to their mothers first BUT
* **3% fathers first and 27% joint attachment**
* in the following weeks, infants usually formed a secondary attachment with their father
* **18months - 75% of infants had formed an attachment with their father** (measured through protest when leaving the room)

Do fathers have a distinctive role?

* **Grossmann et al. (2002)**
* longitudinal study looking at parent’s behaviour and its relationship to the quality of their baby’ later attachments
* quality of the baby’s attachment with the mother was linked to children’s attachment in adolescence (suggests that fathers aren’t that important)
* HOWEVER, quality of father’s play with their babies was related to the quality of adolescent attachments
* **suggests that fathers have a role more to do with play and stimulation rather than nurturing and emotional development**

Can fathers be primary care-givers?

* when they are primary carers, they often adopt the emotional role more typically of mothers
* **Field et al. 1978**
* observed face to face interactions between infants and primary caregiver mothers, fathers and secondary caregiver fathers
* found that the **primary caregiver fathers spent more time, like mothers, holding, smiling and imitating than secondary caregiver fathers**
* these are important behaviours when building attachments
* **Shows that fathers can be more nurturing and that gender is not key, rather the level of responsiveness**

AO3 - Limitation - confusion over the research question into the role of the father

* A big issue with the research into the role of the father is the lack of clarity over the question being asked
* “What is the role of the father” is much more complicated than it sounds"
* Some research is interested in their role as a secondary attachment whilst others as a primary attachment figure
* the findings also vary depending on the question
* some research finds the father behaving like a primary carer and others find the father in a distinctive role, as a secondary carer (‘playmate’)
* this makes it difficult to offer a simple answer to the question, as it depends on what specific role is being discussed

AO3 - LIMITATION - conflicting evidence in the role of the father

* a further limitation is that there is a lot of conflicting evidence
* longitudina l studies (e.g. Grossman et al.) have suggested that fathers as secondary attachment figures have an important and distinct role in the children’s development
* we would therefore expect that children growing up in a single mother and lesbian parent household would turn out different in some way
* HOWEVER, this is not the case - McCallum + Golombok 2004

AO3 - RWA - role of the father

* one strength of research into the role of the father is that it can be used to offer advice to parents
* agonising decisions over roles can cause a lot of pressure and confusion, to the point where prospective parents could start considering whether to not have a child at all
* research can be used to offer reassuring advice to parents
* E.g. fathers are more than capable of becoming primary attachment figures and also not having a father round at all doesn’t affect a child’s development

What animals did Lorenz use?

Geese

what was Lorenz’s procedure?

1. randomly divided a group of goose eggs
2. half were raised with a mother and the other were placed in an incubator
3. Lorenz was the first moving thing the goslings saw (in the incubator)

What were Lorenz’s findings?

* after hatching, the incubator group followed Lorenz wherever he went, the control group followed the mother - even after mixing them up

Imprinting

* birds attach to and follow the first moving object they see

critical period

* Time period which imprinting must take place, or it won’t take place at all
* this could be as little as a couple of hours

What did Lorenz find about sexual imprinting?

* he investigated the relationship between imprinting and adult mate preferences
* imprinting would often lead to courtship behaviour later being displayed
* Lorenz reported a case of an orphaned peacock being reared in the reptile house at a zoo
* the peacock imprinted on a giant tortoise which lead it to show courtship behaviour towards giant tortoises

what animals did Harlow use?

Rhesus monkeys

What was Harlow’s procedure?

* 16 baby monkeys separated from their mothers + reared with 2 surrogate ‘mothers’
* one was just made of wire
* the other was wire, covered in soft cloth and heated with a hot water bottle

2 separate conditions


1. wire mother dispensed milk
2. cloth mother dispensed milk

Interested how long the babies would stay with each mother and how they would act towards them

What did Harlow find?

* The baby monkeys spent most of their time with the cloth mothers, regardless of where the milk was coming from
* this included reaching across from the cloth mother to the wire mother to get food
* the babies sought comfort from the cloth mother - e.g. when frightened (a doll was put into the cage) regardless of which dispensed milk

What did Harlow say about maternal deprivation?

* Monkeys deprived of their mother suffered severe consequences (especially those reared with a wire mother)
* less sociable
* more aggressive
* bred less
* neglected, attacked and sometimes killed their young
* found that those who were around others could gain some ‘normal’ behaviour back but only if this time was spent before 3 months old

What was Harlow’s conclusion?

* Harlow concluded that baby rhesus monkeys appear to have an innate drive to seek contact comfort from their parent
* suggests that attachment is formed through an emotional need for security rather than food, which is a contrast to the learning theory explanation
* creature comfort is vital for attachment - also for social development i.e. socialising and parenting etc

AO3 - STRENGTH - research support for Lorenz

* one strength is the research support for the concept of imprinting

Regolin and Vallortigara (1995)

* chicks were exposed to simple chape combinations that moved e.g. a triangle with a rectangle in front
* when exposed to a range of combinations, they followed the original one closely
* this supports the view that young animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object present in a critical window of development

AO3 - LIMITATION - lorenz - generalisability

* Lorenz only studied non-human animals so it is difficult to assume that humans would act in the same way
* the attachment formation in mammals appears to be very different to that of a bird
* parents, specifically mothers, show more emotion reactions to their offspring with the added ability of being able to for attachments beyond the first few hours of birth
* so whilst Lorenz’s finding’s have greatly influenced our understanding of development and attachment formation, the results and conclusions can’t necessarily be extrapolated to a human population

AO3 - STRENGTH - Harlow RWA

* Harlow’s research has practical value since it provides insight into attachment formation
* E.g. Howe reports that the knowledge gained from Harlow’s research has helped social workers and clinical psychologists understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in child development which can then allow people to intervene to prevent poor outcomes
* in addition there are practical applications in the care of captive wild monkeys in zoos or breeding programmes to ensure that they have adequate attachment figures as a part of their care
* this means that the value of Harlow’s research is not just theoretical but can also be used in a practical sense in the real world

AO3 - LIMITATION - Ethics in Harlow

* Animal studies are practical in many ways, but are also very unethical
* the monkeys suffered greatly in terms of emotional separation from their biological mother at such an early age due to the procedure Harlow used
* if the primates are considered to be sufficiently human like to generalise the results beyond the sample used then it stands to reason that the effects of psychological harm that they will have endured are similar to that of a human baby also → protection from harm X
* there is however, the question of whether the insight obtained was sufficiently important to psychologists understanding of attachment that Harlow justified in his approach

Who established the Learning theory of attachment?

Dollard and Miller

What did Dollard and Miller suggest?

* Emphasis on the caregiver as a provider of food
* essentially the infant loves whoever feeds them
* ‘cupboard love’ approach
* infant fakes affection in order to obtain something

Classical conditioning in attachment

US (food) → UR (pleasure)

NS = caregiver

* same person provides food → person becomes associated with food i.e. there is an expectation of food

NS → CS

CS → CR

* caregiver = pleasure

for learning theorists, this conditioned pleasure is love

Operant conditioning in attachment

* can explain why babies cry for comfort - important in attachment building
* crying leads to a response e.g. feeding
* if the correct response is provided, crying is reinforced
* crying is then directed towards the caregiver for comfort → caregiver responds (social suppressor)
* infant → +tive reinforcement
* caregiver → -tive reinforcement
* mutual reinforvement strengthens the attachment between the two

attachment as a secondary drive

* learning theorists draw on the concept of drive reduction
* hunger → primary drive → innate
* caregivers provide food
* Sears et al. the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them
* attachment - secondary drive learned by association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of the primary drive

AO3 - LIMITATION- learning theory - counter evidence from animal studies

* Lorenz - the geese imprinted on who they saw first - wasn’t to do with who was feeding them
* Harlow - the monkeys still sought comfort from the cloth mother even if the wired mother had the food
* THEREFORE attachment isn’t purely based around food - more about comfort and security

AO3 - LIMITATION - learning theory - counter evidence from human studies

* in their research Schaffer and Emerson found that babies tended to form their main attachment with their mother regardless of whether she was the one who fed them
* furthermore, in Isabella et al. they found that high levels of interactional synchrony predicted the quality of attachment
* these factors do not relate to food and this again suggests that it is not a main factor in the formation of human attachments

AO3 - STRENGTH - learning theory - support for importance of conditioning

* although it seems unlikely that food plays a central role in attachment, it is possible that conditioning may have a part to play
* E.g. the baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult - could influence the baby’s choice of main attachment figure
* this means that the learning theory could be useful in understanding the development of attachments

COUNTER

* both classical and operant conditioning see the baby as passive in attachment developments
* there is plenty of research showing the very active role that babies play in the production of attachments
* Feldman and Eidelman, Meltzoff and Moore, Isabella et al.

What did Bowlby reject?

The learning theory of attachment

* if this were true an infant would quickly attach to any adult that regularly feeds them
* however this isn’t the case

What did Bowlby propose?

* proposed an evolutionary explanation for attachment

Attachment is an innate system

* gives a survival advantage
* evolved to make sure infants stay close to their caregivers

What elements are a part of Bowlby’s theory?

* monotropy
* social releasers
* critical period
* internal working model

Monotropy

* placed emphasis on one particular caregiver
* mostly put on the biological mother but this doesn’t have to be the case
* this one attachment is different and more important than the others
* the more time spent with the primary caregiver the better

what 2 laws did Bowlby propose?

* Law of continuity
* Law of accumulated separation

What is the law of continuity?

* the more constant and predictable a child’s care is, the better quality the attachment will be

What is the law of accumulated separation?

* the time spent away from the mother all adds up
* the safest amount of time to spend away from the mother is 0

What are social releasers?

innate cute behaviours

* physical
* behavioural

encourage attention from adults

* activate the adult attachment system
* make them feel love towards the infant

Triggers the innate predisposition to become attached

E.G.

a baby is crying on a plane (social releaser) and the mother comforts it to stop it from crying

what is the critical period?

* the back and fourth between the 2 attachment systems gradually builds up between the ‘mother’ and the infant

**Critical period = 6 months**

* this is the time in which the attachment must form
* this is the period when the system is most active
* technically this is a sensitive period and so could be extended to 2 years
* after this period, attachments will become much harder to form
* if attachments aren’t formed at all, it could lead to problems in further life like attachment style and forming long term attachments

what is the internal working model (IWM)?

A mental representation of infants attachment to their primary caregiver

* a model of what relationships should look like
* a template for future relationships
* loving and reliable caregiver → expect all relationships to be like this and will bring these qualities to future relationships
* poor attachment → poor relationships, behaviour and expectations

this can affect people’s ability to parent

* we tend to replicate our first attachment

AO3 - STRENGTH - IWM

* research support
* **Bailey et al**. tested the idea that patterns of attachment are passed on through generations of the IWM
* 99 mothers
* measured the mothers attachment to their own primary caregiver and also the quality of attachment with their own babies
* they found that mothers with poor attachment to their own primary attachment figure were more likely to have poorly attached babies
* this supports bowlby’s idea that mother’s ability to form attachments with their babies is influenced by their IWM

COUNTER

However there are other important influences on social development

* some psychologists believe that genetic differences in anxiety and social ability affect social behaviour in both babies and adults
* these differences could also impact parenting ability (Kornienko)
* this means that Bowlby may have overstated the importance of the IWM in social behaviour and parenting at the expense of other factors

AO3 - LIMITATION - mixed evidence for monotropy (Bowlby)

One limitation of Bowlby’s theory is that evidence for monotropy remains unclear

* Bowlby believed that the first attachment was special and unique and that only after it had been established would the infant be able to form multiple attachments
* Schaffer and Emerson - found that although most babies still attached to one person first 27% formed multiple attachments at the same time
* it is also unclear whether there is something unique about the first attachment - the first attachment does appear to have a particularly strong influence on later life, however this could simply mean that it is stronger rather than different in quality
* this means that Bowlby may be incorrect that there is a unique quality and importance to the child’s primary attachment, and this challenges a central concept of the theory

AO3 - STRENGTH - support for social releasers

There is evidence that cute baby behaviours are designed to elicit interaction with caregivers

* Brazelton et al - observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers
* the researchers instructed primary attachment figures to ignore the baby’s social releasers
* previously responsive babies became increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and laid motionless on the floor
* this illustrated the role of social releasers in emotional development and suggests that they are important in the process of attachment development

Who developed the Strange situation?

Mary Ainsworth

What was the strange situation?

A method of assessing the quality of attachment between a baby and a caregiver, by observing key attachment behaviours

Procedure of the strange situation

* controlled observation (covert)
* takes place in a room with a 2 way mirror so that psychologists can observe the baby’s behaviour
* 5 key behaviours are being observed and scored for intensity on a scale of 1-7

What behaviours were observed in the strange situation?

1. **proximity seeking** - how close the infant stayed to the caregiver
2. **exploration and secure base behaviour** - did the infant explore, but use the caregiver as a source of comfort
3. **stranger anxiety** - experience of distress when an unknown adult enters
4. **separation anxiety** - experience of distress when the caregiver leaves
5. **response to reunion** - behaviour towards the caregiver when they return

How many episodes did the strange situation have?

* 7
* they each lasted 3 minutes

what were each of the episodes in the strange situation?

1. the child is encouraged to explore
2. stranger enters and tries to interact
3. caregiver leaves the infant and stranger alone
4. caregiver returns and stranger leaves
5. child is left alone
6. caregiver returns and is reunited with child

what were the findings of the strange situation?

they found 3 distinct categories of attachment


1. insecure-resistant
2. insecure-avoidant
3. secure

Secure attachment in the strange situation

* explore happily but regularly return to their secure base
* show moderate separation and stranger anxiety
* need and accept comfort on reunion

Parents:

* emotionally available, consistently nurture, loving etc

**66% of babies are secure in the strange situation**

Insecure-avoidant attachment in the strange situation

* explore freely
* don’t display proximity seeking or secure base behaviour
* they do not show distress upon being left alone or seeing a stranger
* they also do not require comforting

Parents:

* emotionally unavailable/ unresponsive
* discourage crying
* encourage premature independence
* disregard needs

**22% of babies were classified as insecure avoidant**

Insecure-resistant attachment in the strange situation

* seek greater proximity and explore less
* show extreme separation and stranger anxiety
* resist comfort upon reunion

Parents:

* usually caused by an inconsistent style of parenting
* both responsive and unavailable
* leads to confusion in the child
* e.g. might come over to play with the child but instead get out their phone and look at it

**12% of children in the strange situation were insecure-resistant**

AO3 - STRENGTH - SS has good reliability

the SS has good inter-rater reliability

* when testing inter-rater reliability for a team of observers, Bick et al. found 98% agreement between observers
* this could be because the observations took place under strict and controlled methods (including the video recording) using predetermined behavioural categories that were easy to observe e.g. separation anxiety
* high inter rater reliability means that findings are considered more meaningful because we can be confident that an attachment type identifies in the SS does not depend on subjectivity

AO3 - LIMITATION - The SS is culture bound

The SS was developed in Britain and the US therefore may only be valid for use in certain cultures

* this is because different babies have different experiences in different cultures and these experiences may affect their responses to the SS
* Takahashi found that in one Japanese study babies diplayed very high levels of separation anxiety and so a disproportionate number of them were classified as insecure resistance
* HOWEVER, Takahashi suggests that this was not due to attachment but rather because of the unusual experiences in Japan, where mothers and babies are rarely separated

AO3 - LIMITATION - SS - another attachment type

Main and Solomon identified a fourth category of attachment - disorganised (type D), a mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours

* the addition of an extra attachment type appears to be a huge problem for Ainsworth’s classification, as it shows the categorisation is incomplete
* on the other hand Type D children are unusual and type d behaviour appears to be the result of experiencing some kind of severe neglect or abuse - therefore type D does not appear to be a normal variation of attachment
* in conclusion, Ainsworth’s classification of attachment types holds up well as a description of normal variations in attachment - however, type D adds something useful to her classification in the form of an abnormal attachment type

cultural variations - Van Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988 - Aim and procedure

* wanted to investigate cross-cultural variations in attachment
* proportions of secure, insecure avoidant and insecure resistant attachments across cultures

Procedure

* Meta-analysis
* 32 studies from eight different countries that has used Ainsworth’s SS
* almost 2000 infants in results

Van Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg findings

* secure attachment was the most common (50-75%), followed by avoidant and then resistant
* resistant was least common - Japan and Israel (collectivist cultures) showed higher levels of insecure resistant in comparison to other cultures
* insecure avoidant was most common in Germany and least common in Japan
* variation in cultures was 150% greater than between - E.g. US type B: 46%-90%

Simonelli et al - cultural variations

* assessed 76 12 mth olds using the SS
* do the proportions of attachment styles still mach those in previous studies
* 50% secure
* 36% avoidant
* these are both lower than previous studies
* suggested to be due to the inc no. women working long hours and using professional childcare

general conclusions on cultural variation

1. secure attachment seems to be the norm across many cultures

* this supports Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal
* supports the idea that secure is the optimal attachment type for healthy development


2. cultural changes can make a dramatic difference in the pattern of attachment

AO3 - STRENGTH - Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg

large samples

* they had a sample of nearly 2000 babies and the primary attachment figure
* having large samples inc the internal validity of the study by reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by a bad methodology or very unusual pts

AO3 - LIMITATION - cultural variations - alternative explanations for similarities between cultures

* universal similarities in how attachments form (and for the majority of secure attachments) is because of an innate drive for survival (Bowlby)
* Van Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg suggest that at least some similarity can be attributed to the effects of mass media e.g. books, TV, internet etc
* these spread ideas about ideal parenting techniques across the globe and so children all over the world are potentially being exposed to similar influences
* similarity could be down to inc global culture rather than down to innate biological influences

AO3 - LIMITATION - cultural variations - culture bias

A problem with a lot of cultural research is that it suffers from imposed etic - this means that tools being used are often designed in one culture and then imposed in another

* the SS was created by an American and is based on the assumption that the researcher has
* E.g. the willingness to explore is a sign of secure attachment
* HOWEVER, in Germany a lack of separation anxiety and pleasure on reunion might be seen as independence and security by German standards rather than insecurity by American - Grossman and Grossman 1990
* infants are not being measured by the standards of their own culture and so may be being incorrectly categorised

Who proposed the theory of maternal deprivation?

Bowlby

When did Bowlby propose his theory of maternal deprivation?

* before his theory of attachment
* focuses on how the effects of early experience could interfere with the usual process of attachment formation
* being separated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences for emotional and intellectual development

What is separation in the maternal deprivation theory?

not in the presence of the primary attachment figure

What is deprivation in the maternal deprivation theory?

loss of an element of care

When is brief separation not a problem for development?

When the child has substitute care

what did Bowlby consider the critical period?

first 30 months of life

effects on development - intellectual development

* extended deprivation of maternal care during the critical period will result in delayed intellectual development
* Low IQ
* adoption studies - e.g. Goldfarb
* Low IQ in people who remained in institutions and therefore, had a lower standard of care

effects on development - Emotional development

* affectionless psychopathy
* the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion for others
* inability to form normal relationships; associated with criminality

Bowlby’s 44 thieves study

1944 - group of children referred for stealing were compared to a control group - all were assessed for affectionless psychopathy and parents were interviewed for prolonged separation

\
thieves

* 32% affectionless psychopaths - 86% experiences early separation
* 68% NOT affectionless psychopaths - 17% experienced early separation

\
control

* 0% affectionless psychopaths
* 4% experiences separation

\
conclusion

* prolonged early separation/ deprivation causes affectionless psychopathy

AO3 - Limitation - counter evidence to bowlby’s findings

* Lewis partially replicated the 44 thieves study with 500 young people
* early prolonged maternal separation did not predict criminality or difficult forming close relationships
* this is a limitation of Bowlby’s theory as it suggests that other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation

AO3 - STRENGTH - animal studies have demonstrated maternal deprivation

* more psychologists are critical of the maternal deprivation theory, but one line of research supports the idea that maternal deprivation can have LT effects
* Levy et al. showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on permanent effect on social development
* however, there is always some doubt over the extent that animal studies can be generalised to humans

AO3 - LIMITATION Bowlby didn’t distinguish between deprivation and privation

* Rutter distinguished between deprivation (loss of primary attachment figure after attachment has been formed) and privation (the failure to form any attachment at all)
* Rutter argues that the long term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be the result of privation
* many of the 44 thieves in Bowlby’s study had moved from home to home during childhood so may never have formed attachments in the first place - this could be the cause of their affectionless psychopathy rather than deprivation

Who conducted the Romanian orphans study

Rutter