attachment
caregiver-infant interactions
Precocial — animals born at a fairy advanced stage of development and don’t often require an attachment to survive (although it might be beneficial)
E.g horse
Altricial — animals born at a relatively early stage of development, they need attachment bonds in order to protect them
E.g human
Attachment — an enduring two-way emotional tie to a specific other person. An attachment is developed when an infant shows:
Stranger anxiety (distress at presence of unknown individuals
Separation protest (distress at absence of specific person)
Interactions serve to develop and maintain an attachment bond between infant and caregiver.
Interactions:
Bodily contact — physical interactions (e.g hugging)
Interactional synchrony — infants move their bodies in tune with the rhythm of carer’s speech to create turn taking (e.g head movements)
Reciprocity — interactions between infant and carer result in mutual behaviour, both being able to produce responses from each other (smiling back after a smile or laugh)
Mimicking — infants have an innate ability to imitate carer’s facial expressions (copying movements)
Caregiverese — adults who interact with infants use a modified vocal language that is high pitched, song-like, slow and repetitive
research
Bodily contact:
Klaus and Kennell — compared to women who only had physical contact with their new born babies during feeding time in 3 days after, mothers who had extended physical contact lasting several hours were shown to have greater eye contact and cuddle their babies more one month later
This suggests greater bodily contact leads to stronger and closer bonds
However, individual differences with the mothers and babies were not considered and therefore initial validity is low as we are unsure whether it is the interaction of bodily contact that led to differing attachments
Caregiverese:
Papousek et al — the tendency to use a rising tone to indicate to the infant it was their turn to talk was cross cultural across the USA, China and Germany
This suggests that caregiverese is an innate, biological device to facilitate the formation of attachment
However caregiverese has been seen to be used by adults to all infants not just those they have an attachment with so it cannot be claimed to specifically help form attachments
animal studies
Lorenz:
Aim — to investigate the mechanisms of imprinting where youngsters follow and form attachment to first large moving object they see
Procedure — batch of fertilised eggs, experimental saw him first when they hatched and others saw mother goose
Results — immediately started following first moving object they saw, irreversible (couldn’t make them follow another). Imprinting would occur with a brief, set time period 4-25 hours (critical period). If imprinted onto humans, when older they would try to mate with humans
Conclusion — imprinting is a form of attachment, exhibited mainly by birds
Evaluations: support for biological basis because imprinting is irreversible it suggests it is under biological control as learned behaviours could be modified by experience, low population validity due to being geese, ecological validity because of field experiment with naturalistic setting with real goslings
Harlow:
Aim — to test the learning theory by comparing attachment behaviour in baby monkeys given a wire mother producing milk and a soft towelling mother producing no milk
Procedure — 16 monkeys separated from their mothers immediately after birth, 4 in each condition. Placed in cages with access to 2 surrogate mothers, time spent with each mother and feeding was recorded, monkeys were frightened with loud noise to test for mother preference during stress
Results — preferred contact with cloth mother
Conclusion — rhesus monkeys have an innate unlearned need for contact comfort — suggested attachment is due to more than food
Evaluations: ethics (putting monkeys in distress with loud noises, unable to give informed consent, taken as newborns from their mother, breaching protection from harm issue), good applicability for emotional care in early life by treatment of species in captivity and parental neglect of human infants and benefits society, low population validity due to evolutionary discontinuity, it can’t be generalised to humans
stages of attachment development — Schaffer and Emerson
Stages:
Pre-attachment phase (birth-3 months)
From 6 weeks of age, infants become attracted to other humans, preferring them from objects — demonstrated by smiling at people
Indiscriminate attachment phase (3-7 months)
Infants begin to discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar people, smiling more at know people but still allowing strangers to look after them
Discriminate attachment phase (7-8 months)
Developing specific attachments, stay close to them and distressed without them. They avoid strangers and unfamiliar people trying to handle them
Multiple attachment stage (9 months onwards)
Strong emotional ties with other major caregivers are formed, i.e grandparents and other children. Fear of strangers weakens but attachment to PCG remains strongest
Study:
Aim — to assess if there was a pattern of attachment formation common to all infants. Secondary aim was to distinguish the stages by which attachments form
Procedure — longitudinal study of 60 infants from Glasgow for 2 yeas. Attachment measured in two ways:
Separation protest: left alone in various places like a room with other people or in a pram outside
Stranger anxiety: researcher approached infant and noted the point where infant started to whimper in anxiety
Results —
½ children showed 1st specific attachment between 6-8 months, fears of strangers begin about a month later in all children
By 18 months, 90% had at least 2 attachments. 30% had as many as 5
40% had a primary attachment to someone other than the person who usually fed, bathed and changed them
Conclusion — pattern of attachment formation common to all infants, multiple attachments are the norm and of similar quality, criticising monotropy (Bowlby’s theory)
Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment
Innate and adaptive
Drive to form an attachment and stay close to caregiver for survival
Instinct present from birth that is pre-programmed in our genes
An adaptive trait that allows our genes to continue by providing protection and food so we can survive long enough to reproduce
Infants have social releasers to aid attachment
Genetically programmed ways for babies to behave towards their mothers in order to increase survival chances
E.g crying, smiling, clinging, vocalising. Baby face hypothesis —> cute features make you want to look after them
Critical period
Critical period where attachments occur is usually up to a year but sometimes up to 2 and a half years
Today more accepted as a ‘sensitive period’
Monotropic
Preference for one person (primary caregiver) which is usually the mother but can be the father
Secure base
Infant will use PCG as a base to explore their surroundings as their attachment with caregiver makes them feel safe
Ainsworth’s strange situation
Internal working model
Main attachment is unique and the strongest of all, forming a model of relationships that the infant will expect from others
Template for future relationships based upon the infant’s primary attachment
Continuity hypothesis
Prediction of how your later relationships will turn out
E.g prediction that if you had a positive internal working model, future relationships will be the same
Evaluations:
Supporting research
Lorenz — supports evolutionary explanation because stated that innate imprinting was evident as an evolutionary advantage by staying at the side of attachment figure to be protected and therefore aid survival
Monotropic and critical period
Contradictory research
Schaffer and Emerson — Bowlby suggested 1 key attachment but they found 90% of infants had at least 2 attachments by 18 months and therefore monotropy might not be correct
Rutter
Reductionist
Only considers biological factors for evolution like social releasers which aid survival, ignores aspects of being able to learn to develop an attachment which is overly simplistic
Deterministic
Suggests IWM and continuity hypothesis. Predicts our future relationships — outside of our control which ignores free will and choice
learning theory
Attachment is a set of behaviours that have been learnt through the environment, ignoring genetics, favouring nurture over nature
Attachments are developed through infant learning to associate caregiver with food
Classical conditioning:
When infants are given food, they feel pleasure, which satisfies their basic needs
Pleasure becomes associated with caregiver during feed time, and caregiver alone begins to create pleasure response
Operant conditioning:
Mother removes unpleasant feelings like hunger, coldness
Baby attaches to mother, because of them removing punishments
Evaluations:
Dollard and Miller
1st year babies fed more than 2,000 times, generally by main carer, ample opportunity for the carer to become associated w/ removal of unpleasant feeling
However, only a correlation
Supports learning theory of attachment through operant conditioning
Harlow
Monkeys spent more time with cloth mother, even though wire fed them
Schaffer and Emerson
40% of infants had a primary attachment to someone that didn’t feed them
Lorenz
Biological/innate imprinting
Population validity
Learning theory uses animal research like Pavlov and Skinner
Evolutionary discontinuity — not the same cognitive capacities as humans therefore careful when applying to humans
Reductionist
They attempt to explain complex behaviours such as attachments, simply down to feeding, ignoring process such as cognitive process and the emotional nature of attachments
Therefore, over simplistic
Strange situation — Ainsworth
Study:
Aim:
Assess infant’s behaviour under mild stress and novelty, in order to test stranger anxiety
Assess individual differences between mother-infant pairs in terms of attachment quality
Procedure;
Observing behaviour over 8 episodes, lasting approx. 3 mins each (apart from 1st episode, 30 secs)
All behaviour observed + videotaped. 106 pairs observed
Testing room was unfamiliar (lab setting)
Every 15 secs, category of behaviour recorded on a intensity score from 1-7 (time-sampling)
Categories recorded: proximity, contact, search behaviours
Stages:
Mother, infant, observer — experimenter introduces mother + baby to the room then leaves (last less than 1 min)
Mother, infant — mother is passive while infant explores
Strangers, mother, infant — stranger enters, is silent then converses with mother, then approaches infant. Mother leaves
Stranger, infant — first separation episode, stranger’s behaviour geared towards infant
Mother, infant — first reunion episode, stranger leaves and mother greets and/or comforts infant then tried to engage and play. Mother leaves saying bye bye
Infant — second separation episode. Infant is alone
Stranger, infant — stranger returns and gears behaviour towards infant
Mother, infant — second reunion episode. Mother enters, greets and picks up infant while stranger leaves quietly
4, 6, 7 cut short if infant is too anxious or distressed
Types:
Type A — insecure avoidant (15%)
Ignored mother, indifferent to her presence
Little stressed when she left the room, ignored/avoided when returned
Similar reactions to mother + stranger
Most distressed when left on own
Explored happily w/ mother + stranger — don’t use mother as secure base
Type B — securely attached (70%)
Played contently and explored when mother was present, whether or not the stranger was present too
Distressed when mother left, sought contact when she returned
Mother + stranger treated differently, stranger anxiety present
Type C — insecure resistant (15%)
Fussy (can’t be soothed) and clingy, even with their mother present
Highly distressed at leaving — suggests they don’t trust she’s caring back, happens a lot(?)
Sought contact on her sometimes, but other times showed anger and resisted contract anger/distress at the stranger
Didn’t explore surroundings at all, stayed close to mother — don’t use mother as secure base
Conclusion:
Sensitive responsiveness is the major factor defending the quality of attachments, as sensitive mother correctly interpret infant’s signals and respond appropriately to their needs
Sensitive mothers tend to have securely attached infants
Evaluations:
Supports Bowlby’s evolutionary theory
Lacks ecological validity, controlled lab setting with artificial tasks and predetermined script, which is hard to generalise to other settings, specifically real life
It is unethical, putting child under stress by creating separation and stranger anxiety, breaks ethical guidelines of protection of participants (however, separation episodes were curtailed prematurely if the child became too distressed)
Lacks population validity, biased sample compromising 106 middle class American families, difficult to generalise the findings to non-Americans, collectivist cultures or working class families. Therefore, we cannot safely say that the attachment types found and their proportions would be found in other types of people
Main and Solomon found an additional type D which displayed a confusing mixture of approach and avoidance behaviours that didn’t fit into A, B or C. This makes the study less reliable and highlights subjectivity of categories
Cultural variations
Introduction:
Culture — all rules, values, morals and ways of interacting that bind together members of society or collection of people
Individualistic culture
Concerned w/ needs, goals and interests of individual
Freedom, independence, self is most important
SELF-other
Collectivist culture
Concerned w/ needs, goals and interests of group
Look after the group and belonging, loyalty and harmony, other is most important
self-OTHER
Universal — seen everywhere/global
Culturally specific — only applies to certain groups
Tronick et al — African tribe in EFE, lived in extended family groups. Infants looked after and breastfed by different women but usually sleep with their own mother at night. 6 months old: primary attachment to their mother
Attachment is biological, has evolutionary basis. Monotropy seen across different cultures
Grossmann and Grossmann
They found German infants tend to be insecurely avoidant attached, due to differences in child rearing because interpersonal distance and independence is encouraged and infants engage less in proximity-seeking behaviour. Majority were still secure but higher proportion of insecurely attached than other places
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg
Aims: to investigate types of attachment across cultures and how three main types applied. To assess extent or inter and intra cultural differences
Procedure: meta-analysis from 32 studies in 8 countries using strange situation procedures. All studies comprised of at least 35 mother infant pairs below the age of 2 years
Results: secure attachment is the most common, supports attachment as innate/bio process. However, individualistic cultures had anxious avoidant as 2nd most common (Germany, 35% ) and collectivistic as insecure resistant (Japan, 27%). Cultural variation for second most common can be explained by different childcare practices
Conclusion: there may be universal/innate characteristics that underpin infant and caregiver interactions, limited due to variations of insecure attachments because child-rearing and environment. Intra cultural differences are often greater than inter-cultural
Evaluations:
Limited samples in many studies. China, Sweden and U.K had 1 study conducted, while USA had 18 studies and over 10x the participant size. Therefore, some countries may not be representative, can’t safely generalise
Ethnocentric. Cross-cultural research using strange situation judges and categorises infant behaviour according to behaviour categories that were developed following observations of m.c American infants. Non-American infant behaviour is interpreted against the American standard — e.g crying excessively is considered resistant but in Japan is a natural reaction according to their norms. Meta-analysis is not a true representation of cultural variations in attachments —> imposes negative label on cultures w/ this kind of culture as abnormal and as American norms being superior
Imposed etic — using resources/materials familiar to one culture in a different culture —> e.g toy types
In Japan study, greater variations in culture than between, one found no anxious avoidant children but higher anxious resistant. The other found a pattern much more like standard Ainsworth (rural). Intra-cultural differences were larger than intra-cultural
Role of the father
Historically, mothers were caregivers but today women work and men can stay at home
Dads manage parenting superbly
Degree of sensitivity — more secure attachments to their children found in fathers who show sensitivity to children’s needs (Hardy — less able than mothers to detect low levels of infant distress)
Martial intimacy — the degree of intimacy a father has within his relationship w/ his partner affects the type of attachment he will have with children (Belsky — found high levels of marital intimacy with their partners related positively to secure father-infant attachments)
Type of attachment with own parents — single parent fathers tend to form similar attachments w/ their children that they had with their own parents
Supportive co-parenting — amount of support a father gives his partner in helping to care for children affects type of attachment he will have with children
Bowlby’s maternal deprivation
Bowlby argued that when attachment bonds are broken or disrupted by separation, irreversible damage is done to attachment and development
Separation (brief, temporary separation)
PDD model:
Protest — child cries, screams, protests angrily when parent leaves. Likely to cling to parent and struggle to escape from others who picked them up
Despair — after a while, angry protest subsidies and they appear upset but calmer. Likely to refuse others attempts to comfort them and appear withdrawn and uninterested
Detachment — if it continues, child may begin to engage w/ others but likely to be wary or distant. May reject PAF when they return and show signs of anger
Separation puts idea in baby’s head that parent is less reliable, which affects attachment.
Research:
Robertson and Robertson — little John, 17 months, secure attachment with mother. Spent 9 days in residential nursery whilst his mother was in hospital having a baby and appeared very distressed and went through all stages of the PDD model. On his mother’s return, John was confused and struggled to get away from her, and negative effects evident for years to come
Evaluations: used small sample (5) which isn’t generalisable, not under experimental conditions or standardised
Deprivation (long term separation)
Deprivation is long term separation or attachment that was broken and never got back. Bowlby believed first 5 years were most crucial for mother-infant relationship, as disruption affected socialisation and lead to higher incidence of juvenile delinquency, emotional difficulty and antisocial behaviour.
44 thieves study:
Aim: investigate long term effects of maternal deprivation
Procedure: interviews with 44 juvenile delinquents and 44 controls who had emotional problems/in child protection program despite not committing crimes yet. Parents also interviewed on critical period separation and for how long
Findings: 50% separated for longer than 6 months in first five years, only 2 controls had such separation. 32% had affectionless psychopathy while no controls did
Conclusion: Bowlby concluded maternal deprivation lead to behavioural and emotional problems
Evaluations:
Correlational study, decreased internal validity as only shows relationship of deprivation and anti-social behaviour. Extraneous variables such as family conflict and parental income, education etc. could have affected the 44 thieves and therefore may have confounded results
Good applicability, highlighted need for good emotional care and attachments in early life. Invaluable in helping rescue children from families where that is missing/parental neglect of infants, therefore benefitted people in society
Privation (failure to form an attachment)
Effects:
Problems with family attachments
Problem with peer relationships
Language problems
Disinhibited attachment — clingy/attention seeking
Low cognitive scores
Some physical characteristics like rocking
Genie:
Between 14-20 months, learning to speak. Doctor said she was developmentally delayed and possibly mildly retarded. Her father thought it was more severe and subjected her to confinement to ‘protect her’
Locked in her bedroom for 12 years, bound all day and beaten for vocalising
Discovered at 13, she couldn’t stand erect, vocab of 20 words and scored as low as normal 1 year old on social maturity score
She learnt to give one word answers and dress herself, could express herself with sign language but never reached any sort of normal/emotional development and cognition
Czech twins:
Their stepmother banished them to the cellar for next 5 years and sometimes beat them. Their father was absent mostly because of his job
They were discovered at 7, dwarfed in stature, lacking speech and suffering rickets. They were predicated to have permanent physical/mental handicap
They underwent programme of physical remediation at a school for severe learning disabilities and adopted by a dedicated woman. They caught up with same age peers, emotional and intellectual normality and they went on to live normal lives and have families of their own
Evaluations:
Czech twins — weakness
Cared for by an agency for 1st year which means they might have formed an attachment in the care home
Therefore might be a study into deprivation, not privation, which might explain why their effects weren’t as severe and they were less able to recover
Less valid
Effects of privation may be reversible by forming good relationships after. Czech twins adopted and cared for while Genie had bad experiences in care afterwards
Genie was intellectually disable, therefore the effects may have been caused by this over privation as to why she was unable to speak etc.
Cause effect cannot be established which lowers internal validity
Institutionalisation — privation due to not being as close because lot’s of children and a job rather than being caregiver like parents are
Hodges and Tizard:
Aim: to compare the development of children in institutional care at a yeoung age, under 3 conditions: remained in institution, adopted, restored to their biological family
Procedure: 65 ppts, had been in institutional care from before the age of 4 months (no attachments formed). 24 adopted, 15 restored, 26 remained in care. Social and emotional development assessed at age 4, 8, 16 years using observations, questionnaires and interviews with teachers, carers and school friends
Findings: adopted and restored became attention-seeking and more affectionate and had difficulty making relationships with peers — effects of privation no matter what condition. However, had normal relationships with adopted family, which suggests effects of privation can be slightly reversible. The institutionalised children were the worst but adopted were the least negatively affected.
The restored may have experienced a bad home life which led to being taken away or given up which may be why they were still not in a good position, the adopted where often the best because adopting parents will be more sensitive and caring to a child
Rutter et al:
Aim: assess whether loving and nurturing could overturn effects of privation from Romanian orphanages
Procedure: longitudinal, quasi study
Cond 1 — adopted before 6 months
Cond 2 — adopted between 6 months and 2 years
Cond 3 — adopted after 2 years
111 orphanages, assessed height, head circumference and cognitive functioning. Assessed again at 4.
52 British adoptees as a control group — to see if negative effects were due to separation from carers or the institutional conditions in Romanian orphanages
Results:
Longer children stayed in Romanian orphanage, worse they were affected
Half were retarded at assessment when entering Britain, most were underweight
Age 4: Romanians orphans showed great improvements physical and cognitive development (suggesting privation effects can be minimised)
Adopted by 6 months showed greatest improvement, similar to Brit. adoptees (who didn’t suffer severe conditions = suggesting earlier yo were adopted from institution, less negative effects)
Conclusion: nurturing care can reverse negative effects of institutionalisation. Romanian conditions worse than in Britain as British and less negative effects
Evaluations:
Naturalistic, low internal validity. Extraneous variables such as personality, IQ and cognitive functioning not taken into account (possible that they were given up due to having learning difficulties in the first place), cannot establish cause-effect that condition they were in affected development
High ecological validity, naturalistic. Used horrific real life conditions of Romanian poverty in the 90s. We can generalise to other settings, like real life care settings, therefore we have a more informed view
Early attachment on childhood and adulthood relationships
Continuity between early attachment and childhood relationships
Youngblade and Belsky — 3-5 year olds with secure attachments were more curious, empathetic and found it easier to form relationships with each other. Correlational
Continuity between early attachment and adult relationships
Hazan and Shaver
Aim: test the IWM, see if there was a correlation between infant attachment type and future approach to romantic relationships
‘Love quiz’, checklist on childhood relationship with parents + relationship with each other and questionnaire of individuals‘ beliefs about romantic love (‘if it lasted forever’ or how much trust there is)
620 ppts, 14-82, volunteer sample in local newspaper
Secure —> happy and trusting love experiences, accepted partner regardless of faults, enduring and renewing, dependable and can be dependent
Anxious resistant —> obsession, desired reciprocation, emotional highs and lows, extreme sexual attraction and extreme jealousy, fear of abandonment or ‘false love’ and closeness frightening others
Anxious avoidant —> feared intimacy, emotional highs and lows, jealousy, don’t need love to be happy and uncomfortable being close or depending on others
Results: high correlation between infant attachment and romatnic love style in adulthood
Conclusion: evidence to support IWM and its lifelong effect, however some people did change as they grew older which suggests it is not fixed
Evaluations:
Correlational, hard to establish cause-effect. Infant attachment type may just be 1 of the variables influencing adult relationships, over extraneous variables may be at play, therefore cannot be certain that IWM does have direct influence
Low internal validity, ppts relying on memory (retrospective data which may not be accurate) which can be changed or distorted, social desirability and lying can also occur. Attachments reported may be inaccurate so can’t say for certain infant attachment (IV) caused adult romantic styles (DV)
Hard to generalise due to volunteer sample. Newspaper ad — ppts tend to have characteristics like time availability and personality traits like confidence, also avoidant types likely to not care about their romantic relationships. Sample is unrepresentative and cannot be safely generalised to target population