Unit 3.6a

As Aristotle recognized long ago, we are, from infancy onward, social animals. Thanks to our ancient ancestors surviving in groups that together hunted, gathered, and shared, nature has given us a need to belong. Whether babies, teens, or retirees, we flourish when supported by close relationships. Psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems theory argued that different environments we encounter affect our cognitive, social, and biological development (see Figure 3.6-1). As Pope Francis has said, “Everyone’s existence is deeply tied to that of others.”Social-Emotional Development in Infancy and Childhood

3.6-1 How do caregiver-infant attachment bonds form?

From birth, most babies are social creatures, developing an intense attachment to their caregivers. Infants come to prefer familiar faces and voices, then to coo and gurgle when given a caregiver’s attention. By 4.5 months, infants can distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar languages (Fecher & Johnson, 2019). After about 8 months, soon after object permanence emerges and children become mobile, a curious thing happens: They develop separation anxiety when away from caregivers, and stranger anxiety in the presence of strangers. They may greet strangers by crying and reaching for familiar caregivers, as if to say “No! Don’t leave me!” Children this age have schemas for familiar faces — and may resist being handed to someone unfamiliar (Quinn et al., 2019). Once again, we see an important principle: The brain, mind, and social-emotional behavior develop together.

Origins of Attachment

One-year-olds typically cling tightly to a caregiver when they are frightened or expect separation. Reunited after being apart, they often shower the caregiver with smiles and hugs. This striking caregiver-infant attachment bond is a powerful survival impulse that keeps infants close to their caregivers. Infants usually become attached to those — typically their parents — who are comfortable and familiar. For many years, psychologists reasoned that infants became attached to those who satisfied their need for nourishment. But an accidental finding overturned this explanation.

Body Contact

During the 1950s, psychologists Harry Harlow and Margaret Harlow bred monkeys for their learning studies. To equalize experiences and to isolate any disease, they separated the infant monkeys from their mothers shortly after birth and raised them in individual cages, each of which included a cheesecloth baby blanket (Harlow et al., 1971). Then came a surprise: When their soft blankets were taken to be washed, the monkeys became distressed.

The Harlows recognized that this intense attachment to the blanket contradicted the idea that attachment derives from an association with nourishment. But how could they show this more convincingly? To pit the drawing power of a food source against the contact comfort of the blanket, they created two artificial mothers. One was a bare wire cylinder with a wooden head and an attached feeding bottle; the other was a cylinder with no bottle, but covered with foam rubber and wrapped with terry cloth.

When raised with both artificial mothers, the monkeys overwhelmingly preferred the comfy cloth mother (Figure 3.6-2). Like other infants clinging to their live mothers, anxious monkey babies would cling to their cloth mothers, soothed by this contact comfort. When exploring their environment, they used her as a secure base, as if attached to her by an invisible elastic band that stretched only so far before pulling them back. Researchers soon learned that other qualities — rocking, warmth, and feeding — made the cloth mother even more appealing.

Figure 3.6-2 The Harlows’ monkey mothers

The Harlows’ discovery surprised many psychologists: The infants much preferred contact with the comfortable cloth mother, even while feeding from the nourishing wire mother.

 SPOTLIGHT ON: Harry Harlow and Margaret Harlow

Human infants, too, become attached to parents who are soft and warm and who rock, feed, and pat. Much parent-infant emotional communication occurs via touch, which can be either soothing (snuggles) or arousing (tickles) (Hertenstein et al., 2006). People across the globe agree that the ideal mother “shows affection by touching” (Mesman et al., 2015). Such parental affection not only feels good, but also boosts brain development and later cognitive ability (Davis et al., 2017).

Another aspect of human attachment is one person providing another with a secure base from which to explore and a safe haven when distressed. As we mature, our secure base shifts — from parents to peers and partners (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Schmidt et al., 2019). But at all ages we are social creatures. We gain strength when someone offers, by words and actions, a safe haven: “I will be here. I am interested in you. Come what may, I will support you” (Crowell & Waters, 1994).

Familiarity

Contact is one key to attachment. Another is familiarity. In many animals, attachments based on familiarity form during a critical period — an optimal period when certain events must take place to facilitate proper development (Bornstein, 1989). As we saw in Module 3.5, humans seem to have a critical period for language. Goslings, ducklings, and chicks have a critical period for attachment, called imprinting, which falls in the hours shortly after hatching, when the first moving object they see is normally their mother. From then on, the young fowl follow her, and her alone.

Daddy duck? While researching imprinting, Konrad Lorenz (1937) wondered: What would ducklings do if he was the first moving creature they observed? What they did was follow him around: Everywhere that Konrad went, the ducks were sure to go.

Children — unlike ducklings — do not imprint. However, they do become attached, during a less precisely defined sensitive period, to what they’ve known. Mere exposure to people and things fosters fondness. Children like to reread the same books, rewatch the same movies, and reenact family traditions. They prefer to eat familiar foods, live in the same familiar neighborhood, and attend school with the same old friends. Familiarity is a safety signal. Familiarity breeds content.

Attachment Differences: Temperament and Parenting

3.6-2 How have psychologists studied attachment differences, and what have they learned?

What accounts for children’s attachment differences? To answer this question, Mary Ainsworth (1979) designed the strange situation. She observed mother-infant pairs at home during their first 6 months. Later she observed the 1-year-old infants in a strange situation (usually a laboratory playroom) with and without their mothers. Such research has shown that about 60 percent of infants and young children display secure attachment (Moulin et al., 2014). In their mother’s presence they play comfortably, happily exploring their new environment. When she leaves, they become distressed; when she returns, they seek contact with her.

Other infants show insecure attachment, marked by anxiety or by avoidance of trusting relationships. These infants are less likely to explore their surroundings; they may even cling to their mother. When she leaves, they either cry loudly and remain upset or seem indifferent to her departure and return (Ainsworth, 1973, 1989; Kagan, 1995; van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1988). Infants who display disorganized attachment show no consistent behavior during these separations and reunions.

Ainsworth and others found that sensitive, responsive mothers — those who noticed what their babies were doing and responded appropriately — had infants who exhibited secure attachment (De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997). Insensitive, unresponsive mothers — mothers who attended to their babies when they felt like doing so but ignored them at other times — often had infants who were insecurely attached. The Harlows’ monkey studies, with unresponsive artificial mothers, produced even more striking effects. When put in strange situations without their artificial mothers, the deprived infants were terrified (Figure 3.6-3).

Figure 3.6-3 Social deprivation and fear

In the Harlows’ experiments, monkeys raised with artificial mothers were overwhelmed when placed in strange situations without those mothers.

 SPOTLIGHT ON: Mary Ainsworth

Many remember Harry Harlow as the researcher who tortured helpless monkeys, and today’s climate of greater respect for animal welfare would likely prevent such primate studies. But Harlow defended his methods: “Remember, for every mistreated monkey there exist a million mistreated children,” he said, expressing the hope that his research would sensitize people to child abuse and neglect. “No one who knows Harry’s work could ever argue that babies do fine without companionship, that a caring mother doesn’t matter,” noted Harlow biographer Deborah Blum (2011, pp. 292, 307). “And since we … didn’t fully believe that before Harry Harlow came along, then perhaps we needed — just once — to be smacked really hard with that truth so that we could never again doubt.”

AP® Science Practice

Research

The Harlows’ monkey studies would likely not be permitted today because the American Psychological Association now has guidelines that protect animal welfare. You can revisit Module 0.5 to review these guidelines.

So, caring parents (and other caregivers) matter. But is attachment style the result of parenting? Or are other factors also at work?

Temperament and Attachment

How does temperament — a person’s characteristic emotional reactivity and intensity — affect attachment style? Studies reveal that heredity affects temperament, and that temperament affects attachment style (Picardi et al., 2011; Raby et al., 2012).

ap® exam tip

Note that temperament is a contribution from the nature side of the nature–nurture debate.