explanations + types of attachment ☑️

learning theory

john dollars and neal miller (1950) proposed caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory, which emphasises the importance of attachment figure as a resource provider (children learn to love whoever feeds them)

types of conditioning:

• classical conditioning

• operant conditioning

classical conditioning (association)

-learning to associate two stimuli together so that we begin to respond to one in the same way that we would respond to the other.

unconditioned stimulus(UCS): food

unconditioned response(UCR): pleasure as a result of food

neutral stimulus(NS): something that gives no significant response

-when the baby sees this person, they now hold an expectation of food as they associate the caregiver with food (the classical conditioning)

conditioned stimulus(CS): the caregiver asa a result of conditioning

conditioned response(CR): sight of the caregiver creates pleasure seeing them

operant conditioning (consequence)

-involves learning form the consequences of behaviour; if a behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, the behaviour is likely to to be repeated again (reinforced). if a behaviour produces an unpleasant consequence (punishment), it’s less likely to be repeated

bowlbys theory

john bowlby (1988) rejected learning theory as an explanation for attachment. instead he looked at lorenz’s and harlows work got ideas and proposed an evolutionary explanation explanation; attachment is an innate system that givers survival advantages, and is evolved as a mechanism to keep young animals safe

explanations for attachment: bowlbys theory

monotropy

-theory is described as monotropic as he placed great emphasis on a child’s attachment to one particular caregiver, that is ore significant than their attachment to others.

-the more time baby spent with the primary attachment figure, the better

• law of continuity- more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better quality of attachment

• law or accumulated separation- effects of every separation from the mother add up ‘and the safest dose is therefore a zero dose’

monotropy evaluation

-limitation- concept on monotropy lacks validity. rudolph schaffer and peggy emerson (1964) found although most babies attach to one primary attachment figure initially, a significant minority formed multiple simultaneously. although first attachment appears particularly strong on influence of behaviour, this may not mean different as other family members / attachment figures can provide the same key qualities (emotional support, a safe base), meaning bowlby may be incorrect that there’s a unique quality and importance to the child’s primary attachment.

bowlbys monotropic theory

social releasers and the critical period

-social releasers: set of cute innate behaviours that baby’s have to encourage attention from adults.

-bowlby recognised attachment was reciprocal and both mothers and baby are hard-wired to become attached

-interplay between baby + adult attachment systems gradually builds in the early weeks during the critical /sensitive period (usually at around 6 months and can extend to the age of 2), where if an attachment isn’t formed, the child will find it much harder to form one later

social releasers and the critical period

evaluation

strength:

-evidence supporting social releasers: t. berry brazelton et al.(1975) observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers and instructed the adults to ignore the baby. findings showed babies becoming increasingly distressed and some gave up- illustrating the role of social releasers in emotional development and therefore attachment development

bowlbys monotropic theory

internal working model

-bowlby proposed a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary attachment figure (internal working model)

-children with loving relationships as first relationships with a loving caregiver tend to form expectations that all relationships are similar, whereas a child with the opposite tends to form poor relationships where they give the love they received/ accept the love they think they deserve.

-internal working model affects child’s ability to later be a parent themselves, as people tend to base their parenting methods on experience, explaining why children r raised in functional families have similar families themselves

internal working model

evaluation

-internal working model predicting attachment patterns will be passed down in generations. heidi bailey et al (2007) assessed attaches relationships in 99 mothers and their 1yo babies and measured the mothers’ attachment to their own primary attachment figure + babies attachment to mothers. the correlation found mothers with poor attachments to their own primary attachment figure had poorly attached babies - supporting idea that mothers’ ability to form attachment is influenced by their internal workings model

counterpoint: other influences in social development are present (eg genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviours in both babies and adults). these differences could also affect impact on parenting (kornieko 2016) -suggesting bowlby may have overstated the importance of internal workings model in social behaviour at the expense of other factors

bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation

-famously said ‘mother-love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health’ - being separated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences (maternal deprivation).

maternal deprivation definition

emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their mother or mother-substitute. bowlby proposed continuous care from mother is essential for normal psychological development and prolonged separation form this adult causes serious damage to emotional and intellectual development.

-seperation vs deprivation; separation simply means the child not being in the presence of their primary attachment figure; only becomes a problem if the child is deprived of emotional care (which can happen if the mother is present and depressed)

critical period

bowlby deemed their first two and half years of life as the critical period for psychological development. if a child is separated from their mother during this period and so is deprived from her emotional care for an extended duration, then psychological damage was inevitable. he also believed there was a continuing rush up to age 5.

effects on development

intellectual development

-bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care during the critical period, they would experience delayed intellectual development, characteristic by abnormally low IQ. eg william goldfarb (1947) found lower IQ in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to to those who were fostered and thus had a higher standard of emotional care.

effects on development

emotional development

bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions towards others. this prevent a person developing fulfilling relationships and is associated with criminality as they cannot appreciated the feelings of victims so lack remorse for their actions.

bowlbys research

bowlbys (1944) 44 theives study examined the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation.

procedure: 44 criminal (robbers) teenagers were all interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy, characterised as a lack of affection, guilt about their actions, and empathy for their victims. their families were also interviewed in order to establish if the theives had prolonged early separations from their mothers- sample was compared to non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people.

findings: 14/44 could be described as affectionless psychopaths, where 12 had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers within the critical period. therefore bowlby concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.

bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation

evaluation: strengths

counterpoint: frederic levy et al (2003) showed that separating baby rats from their mothers for as little as a day had permanent effects on their social development, meaning although bowlby relied on flawed evidence to support maternal deprivation, there are other sources of evidence for his evidence

bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation

evaluation: limitations

-flawed evidence: bowlby carried out both family interviews and assessments for affectionless psychopathy, leaving him open to bias as he knew in advance which teenagers he expected to show signs of psychopathy. also he was influenced by goldfarbs study, which had confounding variables (the children should be considered prived rather than deprived (michael rutt 1981*)), so wasn’t a reliable source to base his research off of.

*meaning bowlby may have overestimated the seriousness of the effect of deprivation in children’s development

-critical vs sensitive periods; jarmila koluchova (1976) reported the case of the czech twins, who experienced very severe physical and emotional abuse from the age of 18 months up until 7 years old, who recovered from severe emotional damage fully after experiencing excellent care meaning lasting harm isn’t inevitable even in cases of severe privation so the critical period should be considered the sensitive period.

cultural variations in attachment

van ijzeboorn and kroonenbergs research: intentions

marius van ijzendoorn and pieter kroonenberg (1988) conducted a study to look at the proportions of the attachment types across a range of countries to assess cultural variation, they also looked at the difference within the same counties to get an idea of variations within a culture.

cultural variations in attachment

van ijzeboorn and kroonenbergs research: procedure

-researchers located 32 studies of attachment where the strange situation was used to investigate the proportions of babies with different attachment types; conducted in 8 countries- 15/32 were US. overall the study yielded results for 1990 children. a meta-analysis was done.

findings

wide variation between the proportion of attachment types in different studies. in all countries, secure attachment was the most common classification however proportion varied from 75% in UK to 50% in china.

in individualist cultures, rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to ainsworth’s original sample (all under 14%) but for collectivist samples from china, japan and isreal rates were about 25%.

-variations between results of studies within same countries were actually 150% greater than those between countries (eg US has securely attached as 45% and 90%).

other studies of cultural variation

italian study

-alessandra simonelli et al (2014) conducted a study in italy to see whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types still matches those found in previous studies. the researcher assessed 76 babies aged 1y using the strange situation

found: 50% secure, 36% insecure-avoidant; lower rate of type B and higher of type A than in most studies, suggested to be because of increasing number of mothers of very young children who work long hours and use professional childcare, showing patterns of attachment type are not static but vary in line with cultural change.

other studies of cultural variation

a korean study

mi kyoung jin et al (2012) conducted a study to compare proportions of attachment types in korea to other studies. the strange situation was used to assess 87 babies. the overall proportions of type A and B were similar to most countries, with most being secure. only 1 baby was type C. this distribution is quite similar to japan’s and since they both have quite similar child rearing styles, this similarity might be explained due to that.

conclusions

-secure attachment seems to be the norm in a wide range of culture, supporting bowlbys ideas that attachment is innate and universal and this type is the universal norm. however, the research also clearly shows that cultural practises have an influence on attachment types.

cultural variations in attachment

evaluation: strengths

-most studies ever conducted by indigenous psychologists (from the same cultural background as the participants); van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg included research by a german team and keiko takahashi (japanese), meaning potential problems in cross-cultural research can be avoided (language misunderstanding or instruction miscommunication or nation stereotypes) meaning there’s a good chance that communication was successful and enhancing the validity of the data collected.

-counterpoint: not all studies from van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg were by indigenous psychologists (gilda morelli and edward tronick (1991)).

cultural variations in attachment

evaluation: limitations

-confounding variables; studies weren’t matched for methodology as characteristics like poverty, social class, environment and p’s age can confound results. the setup of the room could also have an effect; more interesting toys can change results as they may forget about separation. so cross-cultural sturdier may not tell us anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment.

-imposed etic: lack of affection at reunion could indicate type C but in some cultures it could be interpreted as independence rather than insecurity. meaning behaviours may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts so comparing them across cultures is meaningless.

romanian orphan studes: insitutionalisation

rutter et al research: procedure

-former romanian president required women to have 5 kids and most women couldnt afford to keep their children and so ended up in orphanages with poor conditions

procedure: micheal rutter et al (2011) have followed a group of 165 romanian orphans in a longitudinal study as part of the english and romanian adoptee (ERA) study to investigate the extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions. physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4,6,11,15 and 22-25, and a group of 52 children from the UK adopted around the same time served as a control group.

romanian orphan studes: insitutionalisation

rutter et al research: findings

when p’s initially arrived to the UK, half adoptees showed signs of delayed intellectual development and the majority were severely undernourished. at 11, the adopter children shows differential recovery rates related to their age of adoption. meaning IQ of those adopted before 6months was 102, compared with 86 between 6m-2y and 77 for those adopted after 2y. these differences remained at age 16 (beckett et al 2010) and ADHD was more common in 15 and 22-25yo samples (kennedy et al 2016).

-attachment: there appeared to be a difference in outcome related to whether adoption occurred before or after 6m, who displayed a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, however those adopted before 6 months rarely displayed this attachment type.

romanian orphan studies: institutionalisation

zeanah et al research

charles zeanah et al (2005) conducted the bucharest early intervention (BEI) project, assessing attachment in 95 romanian children aged 12-31months who spent around 90% of their lives in institutionalised care, whilst comparing them to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution. in addition carers were asked about unusual social behaviour including clingy, attention seeking behaviour directed inappropriately at all adults (a measure of disinhibited attachment)

romanian orphan studies: institutionalisation

zeanah et al research findings

researcher found 19% of the institutional group were classified as securely attached in contrast to the 74% in the ainsworth strange situation study. the disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children as oppose to >20% controls.

romanian orphan studies: institutionalisation

findings: effects of institutionalisation

disinhibited attachment: being equally friendly and affection towards strangers and familiar people and strangers (strange due to the usually stranger anxiety that 2yo show). signs include: attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, familiar or unfamiliar.

-rutter (2006) explained its an adaption to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive period for attachment formation without spending enough time with one to form a secure attachment.

-intellectual disability

romanian orphan studies: institutionalisation

evaluation: strengths

-it’s application to improve conditions of children growing up outside their family home due to improved understanding of effects of early institutional care and how to prevent the worst of these effects (langton 2006), leading to change; children now only have one or two key workers who play a central role in their emotional care as oppose to large numbers of staff per child. also institutional care is now seen as an undesirable option and a considerable effort is made to accommodate children into foster care or adoption, giving a change to develop normal attachment.

-lack of confounding variables; they were all handed over by loving parents who couldn’t afford to keep them, as oppose to varying trauma and abuse in other studies. meaning the results were much less likely to be confounded by other negative early experiences, however the harmful effects seen in this study may be due to poor institutional care rather than just institutional care; no intellectual stimulation or comfort

romanian orphan studies: institutionalisation

evaluation: limitations

current lack of data on the adult development; no long term effects of institutional care recorded as longitudinal study stopped after 20 (mental health and success in forming romantic and parental relationships) meaning it will be some time the fore we completely know the long term effects for the romanian orphans

-social sensitivity

influence of early attachment on later relationships

internal working model

john bowlby (1969) suggested a babys first relationship with their primary attachment figure leads to a mental representation of this relationship, and acts as a template for future childhood and adult relationships. the quality of their first attachment is crucial as it follows and powerfully affects the nature of their future relationships; babies with healthy loving relationships with a reliable attachment figure tends to assume this is how relationships should be and so will seek out functional relationships and behave functionally within them, without being too uninvolved/involved (type A) or being controlling/argumentative (type C). however children with bad experiences of their first attachment will bring these bad experiences to bear on later relationships, meaning they struggle to form relationships or behave inappropriately within them.

relationships in childhood

attachment type is associated with quality of peer relationships in childhood; securely attached babies tend to form the best quality childhood relationships whereas insecurely attached babies layer have friendship difficulties (kerns 1994). in particular, bullying behaviour can be predicted by attachment type (rowan myron-wilson and peter smith (1998)) where secure children were very unlikely to be involved in bullying, insecure avoidant children were the most likely to be victims and insecure-resistant were most likely to be bullies.

relationships in adulthood

internal working models affect two major adulthood experiences; romantic relationships and parental relationships with your children. a study about romantic relationships and attachment (cindy hazan and phillip shaver (1987) and another by gerard mccarthy (1999) who studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when they were babies to establish their early attachment type. those assessed as secure had the best adult friendships and romantic relationships but insecure either had problems with maintaining friendships or intimacy.

this may also affect the child’s ability to parent their own children as parenting style is usually based on the IWM. eg heidi bailey et al (2007) study shows most mothers had the same attachment classification as their babies and their own mothers.

relationships in adulthood

the love quiz

cindy hazan and phillip shaver (1987) a study between association between attachment and adult relationships by analysing 620 replies to an american love quiz with three sections: their current most important relationship, general love experiences and number of partners, and feeling based questions

findings: 56% were securely attached, 25% insecure-avoidant and 19% insecure-resistant. the type B were most likely to have a good and longer-lasting romantic experiences. and the insecure attachments were tended to reveal jealousy and fear of intimacy. findings suggests patterns of attachment behaviour are reflects in romantic relationships.

influence of early attachment on later relationships

evaluation: strengths

-supporting evidence; studies (eg by fearon and roisman 2017) have concluded that early attachment predicts later attachment, emotional wellbeing and attachment to own children. how strong the relationship is between early attachment type and later development depends on both so whilst type A seems to convey fairly mild disadvantages for any aspect of development, disorganised attachment is strongly associated with mental illness. suggesting secure attachment appears to convey advantage for future development while disorganised appears to seriously disadvantage children.

counterpoint: the regensburg longitudinal study shows no evidence of continuity of early attachment style at adolescence so there may be other important factors.

influence of early attachment on later relationships

evaluation: limitations

-early attachment is assessed retrospectively (not longitudinal), instead researched usually ask adolescents and adults about their relationship with parents and identify attachment type after this, causing two validity problems; asking questions relies on honesty and accurate perception from participants, and it’s hard to identify which is early attachment or adult attachment. meaning measures of early attachment may be confounded with other factors, making them meaningless

-genetically influenced personality may be an influence on both factors, meaning we can never be entirely sure that it’s early attachment and not other factors influencing later development.