AQA Psychology - Attachment

Lorenz Aim

Lorenz Aim

To investigate imprinting in attachment formation. (Phenomenon where birds which are mobile from birth follow the first moving object, usually the mother)

Lorenz Procedure

1. Randomly split a batch of grey goose eggs into two groups

2. One group were hatched by their mother in a natural environment (control group). The other group were hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz (experimental group)

3. The behaviour of the geese was carefully observed

4. Also observed the effect of imprinting on adult male preferences

Lorenz Findings

1. Experimental group imprinted on Lorenz; demonstrated by the fact they followed him everywhere

2. The control group hatched imprinted on their mother

3. When the two groups were mixed up, the control group continued to follow the mother and experimental, Lorenz

4. Lorenz noted imprinting would only occur within critical period (between 4 and 25 hours)

5. Reported that the geese who imprinted on a human would later display courtship behaviour towards humans

Lorenz weaknesses - critical period

Sluckin (1966) questions the validity of the critical period. He replicated Lorenz’s research using ducklings. The ducklings imprinted on him. Sluckin kept one duckling in isolation well beyond the reported critical period. Found it was possible to imprint this duckling. Critical period was actually a sensitive period but attachments could still be formed.

Lorenz weaknesses - imprinting

Guiton (1996) found that chickens who imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults, but that with experience eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens. The impact of imprinting on mating behaviour is not as permanent as Lorenz believed.

Harlow Aim

Harlow wanted to find whether contact comfort was more important in attachment than food

Harlow Procedure

1. Harlow reared 16 baby rhesus monkeys with 2 surrogate mothers. One of the ‘mothers’ was made of wire and the other covered in soft material. The wire mother produced milk whereas the cloth mother did not

2. The amount of time spent with each mother, as well as feeding time, recorded

3. The monkeys were deliberately frightened with a loud noise to test for mother preference during stress

4. The long term effects were recorded - monkey’s behaviour in adulthood in terms of socialbiltiy and relationship with own offspring

Harlow Findings

1. Monkeys spent most time on the cloth mother even though she didn’t supply milk. Cloth mother provided ‘contact comfort’. The monkeys even stretched across to the wire mother to feed whilst still clinging to the cloth mother

2. When frightened by a loud noise they clung to the cloth mother

3. As adults, the monkeys were abusve to their offspring, killing them in some cases. They were also more aggressive and less sociable than others.

Harlow Conclusion

Contact comfort more important to monkey than food when it comes to attachment

Harlow Strengths - research

Harlow showed attachment doesn’t develop as a result of being fed by a mother but as a result of contact comfort. He also showed the importance of the equality of early relationships for later social development. Led to important developments in attachment. Also had important practical applications. Helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse so intervene to prevent it

Harlow weaknesses - extraneous variables

Not all extraneous variables controlled, faces of cloth and wire mother were different, cloth had more resemblance of monkey. Factors other than whether the mother provided food or contact may have influenced attachment formed. Validity effected, cause and effect can’t be established between contact comfort and attachment.

Harlow weaknesses - ethics

Harlow faced severe critics for the ethics. The monkeys suffered greatly as a result of the procedure. They were deliberately stressed and frightened. Rhesus monkeys are closely related to humans suggesting these animals suffered more greatly than less developed animals such as geese. Unethical practices undermine the credibility.

Classical conditioning

Before conditioning:

Food (UCS) → Happy baby (UCR)

During conditioning:

Mother (NS) + Food (UCS) → Happy baby (UCR)

After conditioning: Mother (CS) → Happy baby (CR)

Operant conditioning

Reinforcement produces attachment - crying leads to a response from caregiver. As log as caregiver provides pleasant response, crying is enforced. The reinforcement is a two way process The caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops. So, attachment is reinforced for both infant and caregiver. As well as conditioning learning theory draws on the concept of drive reduction. Hunger is a primary drive. As caregivers provide food the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them. Attachment is thus a secondary drive, learned by an association between caregiver and satisfaction of primary drive

Learning theory strengths

Provides valuable insight into how an infant becomes attached to its main caregiver and the key role food plays in this interaction. Understanding this can lead to practical applications providing advice that if feeding is important in the attachment process then anyone who wants to create an attachment should be involved where possible. Its theories can be scientifically measured

Learning theory weaknesses

Many infants form attachments with people who don’t feed them. Schaffer and Emerson found that in 30% of cases, the primary attachment figure was not the person who fed them. Many infants attach to parents who neglect and abuse them so food is not the key factor in attachment, weakening the explanations validity

Learning theory weaknesses - contradictory research

In Harlow’s research he found that the monkeys formed an attachment with the cloth mother that provided comfort rather than the wire which provided food. This clearly suggests attachment is not due to regular feeding but contact comfort, contradicting the learning theory.

Learning theory weaknesses - alternative explanations

Bowlby’s Monotropic theory of attachment. This theory focuses on attachment as an evolutionary mechanism for survival purposes and may be seen as a more complete explanation of attachment compared to the learning theory.

Monotropic bond

This attachment is to one specific caregiver. This is usually to the biological mother. The mono tropic bond is more important than any other attachments that the child may form.

Internal working model

The monotropic bond acts as a template for all later relationships. This template known as the internal working model (mental representation) has a powerful effect on the nature of a child’s future relationships. It also effects the child’s later ability to be a parent themselves as it appears to be passed on through families. If a child is securely attached to its parents, their are likely to have similar attachment to their own children - Generational continuity

Critical period

According to Bowlby the first 2 years of life are the critical period for attachment to develop. If attachment doesn’t develop (because of separation or death) it might seriously damage the child’s social and emotional development.

Evolutionary principles

Bowlby’s explanation is based on evolutionary principles and argues that humans have evolved a biological need to attach to a caregiver to increase survival changes. Infants show innate behaviours which make attachment to a maternal figure possible. Bowlby called these behaviours social releasers because they bring out care giving behaviours from adults.

Bowlby strengths - evidence

Bailey et al (2007) assessed the attachment of 99 mothers to their babies and their own mothers. They found the majority had the same attachment classification both to their babies and they own mothers. This supports Bowlby’s view that an internal working model of attachment is passed through families.

Bowlby strengths - Brazelton et al

observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers. Researchers then instructed the babies primary attachment figures to ignore the social releasers. Babies became increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and became motionless. Illustrates the roles of social releasers in emotional development and suggests they are important in the process of attachment development. This supports Bowlby’s theory.

Bowlby weaknesses - more important influences

-There are more important influences on social development aside from internal working model - genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviour this could impact parenting ability. Bowlby may have overstated the importance of the internal working model in social behaviour and parenting.

Bowlby weaknesses - critical period no evidence

-Argued that the critical period is not supported by evidence. Most say there is instead a sensitive period where attachments are most likely to be developed but argue they could be formed at other times. Research has demonstrated even children raised in isolation can go on to form attachments after the critical period

Bowlby weaknesses - multiple attachments

-Multiple attachments rather than monotropic bond. Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found by 10 months of age, most babies had formed multiple attachments with parents, grandparents, siblings etc. Bowlby also believed the monotropic bond is different to other attachments. It may be that this attachment is just stronger not of greater importance. This matters because the monotropic bond is very important to Bowlby’s theory, yet the research suggests it lacks validity.

Reciprocity

Involve both parties producing responses from each other. They take turns, as people do in conversation. E.g., infant cries, caregiver responds by feeding or cuddling the baby, the baby babbles words and the caregiver talks back.

Interactional synchrony

Takes place when the mother and infant interact in a way that their actions and emotions mirror each other. Isabella (1989) observed 30 mother and infants and found that high levels of interactional synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant attachment.

Caregiver-infant interaction strengths - supporting evidence

-Supporting evidence - Evans and Porter (2009) studied reciprocity, synchrony and attachment quality in 101 infants and their mothers for the first year after birth. Mothers and babies were invited into the lab on 3 occasions. At 12 months the quality of mother-infant attachment was assessed. Babies judged to be securely attached tended to be those that had the most reciprocal interactions and the most synchrony. Suggests caregiver interactions play a vital part in forming attachments.

Caregiver-infant interaction strengths - Meltzoff and Moore

-Meltzoff and Moore (1977) found that infants aged 2-3 weeks tended to mimic adults specific facial expressions and hand movements. This mimicking has also been observed in babies as young as 3 days. Suggest that caregiver interactions are an innate ability used to aid the formation of attachment.

Caregiver-infant interaction weaknesses - not found in all cultures

-Caregiver-infant interactions not found in all cultures. Le Vine et all (1994) reported Kenyan mothers have little interaction or physical contact with their infants, but high proportion of secure attachments. Therefore, the majority of research in this area may be criticised for being ethnocentric and ignoring attachments in other cultures. Weakens that caregiver interactions are necessary for attachment formation.

Schaffer and Emerson Procedure

1. 60 babies from skilled working class Glasgow homes were studied

2. Were visited at home every month for the first year and again at 18 months

3. Mothers questioned about how they behaved when they were separated (separation anxiety) and how they behaved with unfamiliar adults (stranger anxiety)

Schaffer and Emerson Findings

1. Between 25-32 weeks of age about 50% of the babies shoed signs of separation anxiety towards a particular adults, usually the mother (specific attachment)

2. By 40 weeks 80% of the babies had a specific attachment and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments.

Attachment formation - Stage 1

Asocial Phase

Age: Birth - 3 months

Key features: Infants become attached to other humans from 6 weeks old. They smile more at faces than objects.

Attachment formation - Stage 2

Indiscriminate Attachment

Age: 3 - 7 months

Key features: Infants begin to recognise and prefer familiar faces; however will accept comfort from any adult. Their attachment behaviour is said to be indiscriminate because all adults are treated same.

Attachment formation - Stage 3

Specific Attachment

Age: 7 - 8 months

Key features: From around 7 months infants start to develop anxiety around strangers and become distressed if separated from 1 specific adult (65% of cases the mother). This person is known as the primary attachment figure.

Attachment formation - Stage 4

Multiple Attachments

Age: 9 months onwards

Key features: Form multiple attachments with other people who they spend a lot of time with (parents, siblings etc). These relationships are called secondary attachments.

Stages of attachment - strengths

Good external validity - Schaffer and Emerson’s study was carried out in the families own home and most observations done by parents during ordinary activities and reported to researchers. The behaviour of the babies was unlikely to be affected by the presence of observers

Stages of attachment weaknesses - Cultural variations

- many believe infants must establish 1 primary attachment before developing multiple. There is evidence from cross cultural research to show babies are capable of developing multiple attachments from birth. Cultures where there is more likely to occur are called collectivist cultures because families work together jointly in everything. No agreement about when multiple attachments are formed.

Stages of attachment weaknesses - measuring

-Problems measuring attachment: Difficult to measure behaviour of young children. Particularly problematic during asocial stage as baked aren’t very mobile and could be incorrectly interpreted. Difficult to observe attachment from observation alone.

Ainsworth’s strange situation procedure

The study took place in an unfamiliar room with one way glass, so the behaviour of the infants could be observed covertly. Infants were aged between 12 and 18 months. The sample comprised of 100 middle class American families.

The behaviour used to judge attachment included:

1. Proximity seeking: an infant with a secure attachment will stay fairly close to the caregiver.

2. Exploration: a secure attachment enables a child to feel confident to explore the room, using the caregiver as a secure base.

3. Separation anxiety: does the child protest when separated from the caregiver?

4. Stranger anxiety: If the attachment is secure, you would expect the child to display anxiety when approached by a stranger.

5. Reunion response: this measures how the child reacts when finally reunited with the caregiver.

Seven episodes - Strange situation

1. 1. The child is encouraged to explore

2. A stranger comes in and tries to interact with the child

3. The caregiver leaves the child and stranger together

4. The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves

5. The caregiver leaves the child alone

6. Stranger returns

7. Caregiver returns and is reunited with child

1. The child is encouraged to explore -

tests exploration and secure base

2. A stranger comes in and tries to interact with the child -

tests stranger anxiety

3. The caregiver leaves the child and stranger together -

Tests separation and stranger anxiety

4. Caregiver returns and stranger leaves -

tests reunion behaviour and exploration/secure base

5. Caregiver leaves child alone -

Tests separation anxiety

6. Stranger returns -

Tests stranger anxiety

7. Caregiver returns and is reunited with child

Tests reunion behaviour

Strange situation findings

Ainsworth identified 3 types of attachment: A - Insecure avoidant, B - Secure, C - Insecure Resistant

Type A: Insecure avoidant (20-25% of infants)

Exploration (mother present) - The child does not seek contact from the mother.

Separation anxiety - The child seems unconcerned when the mother leaves

Stranger anxiety - The child shows few signs of distress and ignored the or avoided stranger

Reunion behaviour - Child ignores the mother on her return.

Type B: Secure (60-75% of infants)

Exploration (mother present) - Mother is seen as a safe base from which the child can explore

Separation anxiety - The child cries shortly after the mother leaves

Stranger anxiety - The child is wary of the stranger and maintains closeness to its mother

Reunion behaviour - Child seeks contact when mother returns and is easy to comfort

Type C: Insecure resistant (less than 10% of infants)

Exploration (mother present) - The child is wary of their mother and don’t explore environment

Separation anxiety - The child show intense distress when mother has left

Stranger anxiety - The child is extremely distressed when left with the stranger

Reunion behaviour - Child is ambivalent (seeking and rejecting mother e.g., crying for mother then pushing them away)

Strange situation strengths

Reliable measure - Strange situation is reliable measure of attachment, takes place under controlled conditions and behavioural categories easy to observe. Pick (2012) looked at inter-rater reliability in a team of trained Strange Situation observers and found agreement on attachment type of 94% of tested babies. We are confident that the attachment type of an infant identified in the Strange Situation does not just depend on who is observing. Makes it replicable.

Strange situation weaknesses - lacks ecological validity

Argued that Strange Situation is unrealistic situation for both infant and caregiver. Some suggest attachment types tend to be stronger in this controlled setting rather than in the child’s own home. May cry less in familiar environment. Reduces ecological validity so limits applicability.

Strange situation weaknesses - culturally biased

Strange situation based on American attachment behaviours and ignores how child rearing practices in other cultures may affect behaviour in strange situation. E.g., Japanese infants rarely. Separated from their parents. This can result in child being wrongly classified as insecure resistant. Reduces external validity of the procedure and lilts the applicability.

Strange situation weaknesses - Gender Bias

Ainsworth only assesses the Childs attachment to mother. Research by Schaffer and Emerson demonstrates primary attachment is not always mother so some ate it is an invalid measure of attachment.

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg

conducted this study to find out the proportions of secure, and insecure attachments across a range of countries. They also looked at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture.

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg Procedure

1. Results from 32 studies on attachment that has used the Strange Situation were examined (18 of these from USA)

2. These studies were conducted in 8 countries with a total sample size of 1,990 infants.

3. Data for these studies were meta-analysed

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg Findings

There was a wide variation between the proportions of attachment types in different studies:

-Secure attachment was most common. But, proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China.

-Insecure-resistant overall least common type although proportions ranged rom 3% in Britain to around 30% in Israel

-Insecure-avoidant observed most commonly in Germany and least in Japan.

Variations between results of studies within same country were 150% greater than those between countries. In USA one study found only 46% securely attached compared to one sample which was 90%

Simonella et al

Conducted in Italy to see whether proportions of babies of different attachment types still matches those found previously. Assessed 76 12 month olds using Strange Situation.

Simonella et al Findings

Found 50% secure, and 36% insecure-avoidant. This is a lower rate of secure attachment than found in many studies. The researchers suggest this is because increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional childcare.

Conclusions of cultural variations

Conclusions: Secure attachment seems to be the norm in a wide range of cultures. However, the research also clearly shows that cultural practices have an influence on attachment type.

Van Ijezendoorn and Kroonenberg strengths - sample

-Large sample: Van Ijzendoorn used meta-analysis so a large sample was generated. Nearly 2000 mothers and babies were used in this study. This sample size is a strength as it reduces the impact of poor methodology. Therefore, being able to generalise the findings to a larger population

Van Ijezendoorn and Kroonenberg strengths - researchers

-Indigenous researchers: from the same cultural backgrounds so many potential cross cultural problems can be avoided such as language misunderstandings so validity is enhanced of data collected.

Van Ijezendoorn and Kroonenberg weaknesses - studies

-Has a limited number of studies in some countries. Only 1 study conducted in China, 18 in USA. We are unable to generalise from such a limited sample to the entire country.

Van Ijezendoorn and Kroonenberg weaknesses - culturally biased

-Culturally biased: Strange Situation designed by Ainsworth (American researcher) and is based on a British theory (Bowlby). Test has been used worldwide to judge infants in other cultures. This is an example of imposed etic. In SS lack of separation anxiety indicates an insecure avoidant attachment. However in Germany independent behaviour is encourage so lack of separation anxiety is not a sign of insecurity. The greater frequency of insecure resistant in Japan may result in the fact Japanese infants are rarely separated from their mothers so would find the situation more distressing than children from other cultures. This suggests that cross cultural comparisons may lack validity.

Karen Grossman (2002)

carried out a longitudinal study and found that quality of adolescent attachment to the father is related to father’s play with infants. This suggests that fathers have a different role in attachment - one that is more to do with play and stimuli action and less to do with nurturing.

Field (1978)

filmed 4-month babies in face-to-face interactions with their fathers. She found a difference in the interactions when the father was the primary rather than the secondary caregiver; they spent more time smiling, imitating and holding their babies than the secondary caregivers. So, it seems that fathers can be more nurturing attachment figure and the key to attachment is the level of responsiveness not the gender of the caregiver.

Role of the father limitations - Children without fathers

Many studies have found that children growing up without a father (e.g., same sex or spf) do not develop any differently than those who grow up with both a father and a mother. This suggests that fathers do not have a significant impact on children’s development. McCallum and Golombok (2004)

Why father’s don’t become primary caregivers - Evolutionary psychologists would argue that females, rather than males, are biologically pre-disposed to be more nurturing. For example, the female hormone oestrogen leads to the caring behaviours seen more frequently in females rather than males.

Role of the father strengths - support the mother

Fathers support the role of the mother - Fathers are important not just for children, but mothers too. Supportive fathers provide mothers with much needed time away from childcare. This can help reduce stress in mothers, improve self-esteem and ultimately improve the mother’s relationship with her children.

Role of the father - economic implications

Increasingly, fathers remain at home therefore contribute less to the economy consequently more mothers may return to work and contribute to the economy.

Maternal deprivation

caused by prolonged separation from the attachment figure. According to Bowlby, deprivation during the critical period is particularly harmful. Deprivation results in irreversible long term negative consequences.

Effects on intellectual development:

Cognitive delays and low IQ - Goldfarb 1947 found maternally deprived children in orphanages had lower IQ than those who were fostered.

Effects on emotional development:

Affectionless psychopathy - Bowlby suggested these children would develop an inability to show affection or concern for others, acting on impulse with little regard for the consequence of their actions.

Bowlby’s 44 thieves - aim

This study examined the links between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation.

Bowlby’s 44 thieves - procedure

The sampled consisted of 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing. All ‘thieves’ were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy. Their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether the ‘thieves’ had suffered prolonged early separation from their mothers.

A control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally disturbed teenagers was set up to see how often maternal deprivation occurred in children who were not delinquent.

Bowlby’s 44 thieves - findings

Thieves - 14/44 were described as affectionless psychopaths. Of this 14, 12 had experienced prolonged separation in the first two years of life.

Control group - 2/44 had suffered maternal separation but 0/44 were categorised as affectionless psychopaths.

Bowlby’s 44 thieves - conclusion

Prolonged separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.

Bowlby’s 44 thieves strengths - supporting evidence

Harlow’s study on rhesus monkeys could also be used too support Bowlby’s theory. In his study, the monkeys suffered maternal deprivation as they were removed from their real mothers. As adults, thee monkeys were abusive to their offspring, even killing them in some cases. The monkeys were also more aggressive and less sociable than other monkeys, thus supporting the view that maternal deprivation has a detrimental effect on development.

Bowlby’s 44 thieves limitations - contradictory evidence

Critics argue that findings from cross-cultural research clearly contradict the maternal deprivation hypothesis. Kagan studied the Guatemalan Indians and found that although the children experienced deprivation due to being kept in a windowless hut with little contact with their primary caregiver, they did not experience any social and intellectual impairment, demonstrating that maternal deprivation does not produce irreversible negative consequences. Additionally, Lewis (1954) replicated Bowlby’s 44 thieves study with 500 young people and found that early deprivation did not predict future criminality or difficulty with relationships. This therefore suggests that other factories may influence the outcomes for children who suffer early deprivation

Bowlby’s 44 thieves limitations - Sensitive rather than critical period

Bowlby used the term ‘critical period’ because he believed prolonged separation inevitably caused damage if it took place within that period. However, later research has shown some cases of very severe deprivation have had good outcomes. For example. Koluchova 1976 did a case study of Czech twin boys isolated from 18 months by being locked in a cupboard. Later they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to fully recover. This shows sever deprivation can have positive outcomes, provided the child has som social interaction and good aftercare. Cases like this demonstrate that the period identified by Bowlby may be a ‘sensitive’ one but cannot be critical.

Bowlby’s 44 thieves limitations - retrospective data

E.g., family members were asked to recall events from the early life of the young teenagers in order to determine whether they had suffered prolonged separation. This is a problem because family members may deliberately exclude certain evens or may simply just forget some minor details. This matters because it casts doubt on the interval validity of Bowlby’s findings.

Bowlby’s 44 thieves limitations - Goldfarb

research on development in war time orphanages - could have been trauma from war not separation.

Bowlby’s 44 thieves limitations - researcher bias

Bowlby expected in advance which teenagers would show psychopathy

Bowlby’s 44 thieves limitations - Lévy et al

separated baby rats from mother for a day, had permanent effects on social development.

Rutter et al - aim

To investigate if good care could make up for poor early experiences in an institution

Rutter et al - procedure

Rutter and colleagues followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain. Physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4,6,11 and 15 years. A group of 52 British children adopted around the same served as the control group.

Rutter et al - findings

When they first arrived in the UK half the adoptees lagged behind their British counterparts on all 3 measures of development. At age 11, recovery depended on the child’s age when adopted.

Romanian orphans - impaired social skills

Those adopted after 6 moths showed signs of disinhibited attachment. This is when the child shows equal affection to strangers as they do people they know well. E.g., they may hug or cuddle unknown adults. Attention seeking and clinginess were also more common in the late adopted group.

The Bucharest Early Intervention Project

Zeanah et al (2005) assessed 95 children aged 12-31 months old who had spent on average 90% of their lives in Romanian orphanages. These children were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution. They used the strange situation to measure their attachment type and also asked their caregivers to describe any unusual behaviours.

They found that 74% of the control group were identified as being securely attached compared to only 19% of the institutionalised group. In the institutionalised group, 65% were classed as having a disorganised attachment. These children were also more likely to have been described as having a disinhibited attachment style.

Romanian orphans strengths - real life application

There are important practical applications which have arisen as a result of the research conducted on the Romanian orphans. For example, orphanages and children’s care homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers and try to ensure that each child is assigned a key worker. This means that children have the chance to develop normal attachments and helps avoid disinhibited attachment.

Romanian orphan strengths - few extraneous variables

the research into Romanian orphans allowed psychologists to have a unique opportunity to study the effects of institutionalisation. Due to it having less extraneous variables than pervious orphan studies which had used samples of children who were neglected, abused or suffered loss of their parents. It was therefore hard to identify which specific factors were affecting their emotional and intellectual development. In the case of the Romanian orphanages there weren’t as many confounding variables so the research has higher internal validity

Romanian orphans limitations - not typical

Although the data gained from Romanian orphanages has been useful, it is possible that conditions were so bad that the results cannot be applied to children in other types of institutional care. For example, the Romanian orphanages had particularly poor standards of care and extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation. This is a limitation of the Romanian orphanage studies because the unusual situational variables that exist in these studies may prevent this research from being generalised to other groups of adopted children.

Romanian orphans limitations - long term effects not known

Many studies didn’t follow up for long term effects e.g., Rutter. Suggesting that long term effects of early institutionalisation are unknown.

Insecure avoidant adult behaviours

I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others. I am nervous when anyone gets too close. Romantic partners want me to be more intimate.

Securely attached adult behaviours

I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me.

Insecure resistant adult behaviours

Others are reluctant to get as close as I like. I want to merge completely with another person and this cans care them away. I worry my partner does not really love me.

Youngblade and Belsky - later childhood relationships

found that 3-5 year old securely attached children were more self-confident, got along better with other children and were more likely to form close friendships.