Attachment Psychology Revision Booklet PDF

Attachment 1.​ Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: reciprocity and interactional synchrony. 2.​ Stages of attachment identified by Schaffer. 3.​ Multiple attachments and the role of the father. 4.​ Animal studies...

Attachment 1.​ Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: reciprocity and interactional synchrony. 2.​ Stages of attachment identified by Schaffer. 3.​ Multiple attachments and the role of the father. 4.​ Animal studies of attachment: Lorenz and Harlow. 5.​ Explanations of attachment: learning theory and Bowlby’s monotropic theory. The concepts of a critical period and an internal working model. 6.​ Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’. Types of attachment: secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure resistant. 7.​ Cultural variations in attachment, including van Ijzendoorn. 8.​ Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation. 9.​ Romanian orphan studies: effects of institutionalisation. 10.​The influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships, including the role of an internal working model. What is Attachment? An attachment is a close emotional relationship between two people, for example a parent and baby, in which each seeks closeness and feels more secure when in the presence of an attachment figure. Caregiver-infant interactions Two major aspects of co-ordination of infant and caregiver interactions are reciprocity and interactional synchrony. Reciprocity and Interactional Synchrony N.B. the studies below are interchangeable i.e. ‘reciprocity’ studies can be used to support I.S. and vice versa Reciprocity is when a parent and infant mutually respond to one another, such as by one smiling and the other smiling back and vice versa. N.B. You must say ‘mutual’ or ‘vice versa’ to get full marks on a ‘reciprocity’ definition question. Patterns of reciprocity have been found to be linked to later attachment types. Belsky et al. (1984) carried out a study in which they observed mother-infant interactions when each infant was 1, 3 and 9 months old. At the age of 12 months the infants’ attachment to the mother was assessed using the Strange Situation. Infants securely attached at 12 months had on average been involved in an intermediate level of reciprocal interaction with their mothers when observed previously. Those with low levels of reciprocal interaction tended to have insecure-resistant attachment and surprisingly, those with high levels of reciprocal interaction tended to have insecure-avoidant attachment. It was suggested that an intermediate level of reciprocity may provide an optimal level of stimulation for the infant. Beebe and Steel (2013) found evidence that mothers’ reciprocity failures have negative effects on infants’ attachments. They carried out microanalysis of behaviour during mother-infant interactions when each infant was 4 months old. Some mothers sent out conflicting emotional signals when interacting with their infant, for example smiling when their infant had indicated distress or gazing away from the infant’s face. Infants whose mothers exhibited these reciprocity failures tended to form disorganised attachment. Exam paper answer to ‘an infant showing reciprocity’ = A mother smiles and her baby smiles back Interactional synchrony involves reciprocity. It is a type of interaction between parent and child that involves their being responsive to each other’s cues, mirroring each other’s mood and sharing a mutual focus. Early synchrony involves infants mirroring their mother’s movements, including facial expressions. But I.S. also involves responding appropriately e.g. the mother making comforting noises when the infant cries. Meltzoff and Moore (1977) carried out experiments using 18 babies aged 12 to 27 days. The infants imitated specific facial and hand gestures giving evidence that interactional synchrony begins at a very young age. In a later study (1983) the same researchers demonstrated the same synchrony with infants only 3 days old! – based on this it was believed that the behavioural response must be innate rather than learned. Most available evidence suggests that the level of IS in infants predicts subsequent infant-caregiver attachment. Isabella and Belsky (1991) studied mother-infant interactions at 3 and 9 months and then mother-infant attachment was assessed using the Strange Situation at 12 months. There were two main findings. First, mother-infant interactions showing good interactional synchrony (well-timed, reciprocal, and mutually rewarding interactions) were followed by secure attachment. Second, mother-infant interactions in which the mother was minimally involved, unresponsive to their infant’s behaviour, or intrusive and overstimulating were followed by insecure attachment. Exam paper answer to ‘an infant showing interactional synchrony’ = A baby moves her head in time with her mother Discussion of research into I.S. and R. = what do the findings show or suggest about the importance of I.S., R. and early caregiver-infant interactions? The findings suggest that the early interactions a child has with its parents are very important for its later attachment style, social skills and relationships. This supports Bowlby’s ideas of an internal working model and the continuity hypothesis – what a parent does with its young infant is important for the child’s future and later relationships Belsky’s research also specifically suggests low levels of responsiveness might cause problems with attachment/insecure attachment but that also too much IS/R can also cause insecurity. This latter finding seems to show that parents need to allow their infant some independence, and that being overinvolved is potentially damaging to an infant – perhaps making them avoidant later in life due to stifled independence in infancy! Because IS and R start so early in life (found by Melzoff), this suggests they must be innate and evolved (just like Bowlby proposed) – communication starts at birth – babies start communicating from just 3 days old! - making eye contact, mirroring actions! This means they don’t need to learn how to start communicating – it’s a skill in their nature. They are born, biologically pre-programmed to communicate which aids their attachment! Early IS/R supports Bowlby’s idea of children being born with ‘social releasor’ behaviours that enable it to attach to an adult caregiver – behaviours like smiling and eye contact (present from birth) strengthen the argument that such behaviours are within our genetics and we can see how they elicit caregiving behaviours from parents The research also develops upon Ainsworth’s and Shaffer’s studies which proposed ‘sensitive responsiveness’ might be important in forming healthy, secure attachments, particularly as the studies used A’s own categories of attachment to show continuity. The studies show us that parents need to mirror an infant’s mood in its early life stages and also to respond appropriately, showing sensitivity to the infant’s mood by responding accordingly. Responding inappropriately (as in Tronick’s ‘still face’ experiment) could interfere with a child’s ability to form a healthy attachment, leaving a child confused and misunderstood. Schaffer’s stages of attachment Schaffer and Emerson (1964) argued that infants go through four stages in their development of attachment to others (see table below). This theory was based on findings from their large-scale longitudinal study which followed 60 infants from a mainly working-class area of Glasgow over a period of 2 years. The infants were observed every 4 weeks until they were 12 months old and then again at 18 months. S and E collected data on attachment by considering two types of behaviour (behavioural categories): Stranger distress: if the baby showed signs of distress when approached by someone they did not know. Separation anxiety: if the baby showed anxiety or distress when the caregiver left them. They used a variety of methods to collect their data, including observation of the babies and interviewing their mothers. The mothers were asked to rate their baby’s behaviour in various situations using a four-point scale from 0 (no protest shown) to 3 (cries loudly every time). Findings: Asocial stage 0-6 weeks Babies produce similar responses to objects and people and do not prefer specific people to others. The have a bias towards human-like stimuli and prefer to look at faces and eyes. They rapidly learn to discriminate familiar people from unfamiliar by their smell and voice. Indiscriminate 6 weeks to Babies become more sociable. They can tell people apart and attachments stage 6 months prefer to be in human company. They are relatively easily comforted by anyone and do not prefer specific individuals yet. They do not show fear of strangers. Specific 7 -11 Two changes take place around 7 months. The baby begins to show attachments stage months strong attachment to one individual. They show separation anxiety, protesting when their primary attachment figure leaves them. They also show fear of strangers. Multiple 10-11 Multiple attachments follow soon after the first attachment is attachments stage months made. The baby shows attachment behaviours towards two or onwards  more different people, such as siblings, grandparents and childminders. What does Schaffer’s research tell us about caregiver-infant interactions? Despite general trends, S and E found large individual differences. Intensely attached infants had mothers who responded rapidly to their demands (high responsiveness) and who offered the child the most interaction. In contrast, infants who were weakly attached had mothers who failed to interact. Schaffer and Emerson (1964) also found that 75% of infants studied had formed an attachment with the father at 18 months. S and E also found that in 39% of cases the person who usually fed, bathed and changed the infant was not his/her primary attachment object. Thus many of the mothers and some of the fathers were not the person who performed these tasks yet they were the main attachment figure. Infants tended to form the strongest attachments with the adult who responded most accurately to their behaviour and needs. Adults who showed this quality were said to exhibit sensitive responsiveness. Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s (1964) study The data was collected either by direct observation or from the record kept by caregivers. Both methods are prone to bias and inaccuracy. Mothers recorded situations in which separation protest was shown and indicated the person to whom these protests were shown. Busy mothers may have produced these records some days after the events in question, potentially reducing their validity. There is also an issue with generalisability. The infants in this study all came from Glasgow and most were from working-class families. We cannot generalise the findings to other types of families in other areas. Also S and E’s findings may be era-dependent. They reflect the child-rearing practices of the 1960s when most childcare was carried out by mother who were less likely to work outside the home. Today fathers tend to take a much more active role in their children’s lives and are more likely to be the first attachment figure than they were in the 1960s. Nevertheless, because the infants were studied in their natural environment (their homes), it is likely that the results had more ecological and external validity than laboratory studies on attachment (like Ainsworth’s Strange Situation). Multiple attachments and the role of the father Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that 75% of infants studied had formed an attachment with the father at 18 months. S and E’s (1964) study found that the development of multiple attachments often occurred at about 10 or 11 months of age. By 18 months very few (13%) were attached to only one person and 32% had five or more attachments such as the father, grandparent or older sibling. In 65% of the children, the first specific attachment was to the mother and in a further 30% the mother was the first joint object of attachment. Fathers were the first joint attachment figure in about one third of infants in 1964. Fifty years later, many fathers are much more involved with their babies, particularly in western cultures, being present at the birth and taking responsibility for changing and feeding on an equal basis with the mothers. Research shows that the father may fulfil a qualitatively different role from that of the mother – play vs emotional support – but this is just as crucial to the child’s wellbeing - Christensson (1996) found that fathers interact with their newborn babies in very similar ways to mothers, for example ensuring they are warm. Nevertheless, their behavioural style appears to be different. They are more consistently involved in play than caretaking behaviours and their play tends to be more stimulating and unpredictable than mothers who tend towards soothing their infants. Also, Verissimo et al. (2011) found that the quality of the relationship between fathers and toddlers significantly correlated with the number of friends at preschool, and appeared to be more important than the attachment between a toddler and their mother in subsequent childhood friendships. However Lamb (1987) found that children often prefer interacting with fathers when in a positive emotional state and thus seeking stimulation. Mothers are preferred when children are distressed and seeking comfort. This supports the idea of fathers being preferred as playmates, but only in certain conditions. Discussion / evaluation Children with secure attachments to their fathers are more likely to have better relationships with peers, less problem behaviour and are more able to regulate their emotions; illustrating the positive influence fathers can have on developmental outcomes. However, Field’s (1978) research shows that the father in a single parent family (making him the primary attachment figure) is more likely to adopt the traditional maternal role – similarly, sociological research on homosexual couples suggests that any gender differences in parenting are cultural rather than biological. However, Grossman (2002) found that the quality of mother-child attachment was important when assessing the quality of attachment into adolescence, but this was not the case for father-child attachment, suggesting the role of the father is less important than that of the mother. Other research shows that the role of the father may differ depending on the gender of the child – clearly the specific role of the father needs more research! ​ ​ Animal studies of attachment Lorenz and Harlow There is strong attachment between mothers and their children in many animal species. Lorenz, an ethologist, studied various precocial species of birds. He believed that their behaviour provided useful insights into the development of attachment. He found that some bird species followed the first moving object they saw and continued to follow it after that regardless of whether it was their mother or Lorenz. Lorenz used the term imprinting to describe the birds’ attachment behaviour. Lorenz (1935) split a large clutch of greylag goose eggs into two batches. One batch hatched naturally with the mother, the other batch hatched in an incubator with Lorenz making sure that he was the first moving object the goslings encountered. – this is the IV (who the eggs were hatched with). Lorenz had previously marked the goslings so that he knew whether they had hatched naturally or whether they had hatched in the incubator. He placed all of the goslings under an upturned box. The box was then removed and the goslings’ following behaviour (of the mother goose or Lorenz) (this was their DV “attachment” measured by who they followed) was recorded. An Ethological Theory - Imprinting = When certain precocial species attach to the first large (usually living) thing they see. Lorenz found the goslings attached to him (operationalised by observing their following behaviour). He varied the time between birth and seeing a moving object so he could measure the critical period for imprinting This must happen in the first 32 hours of the ‘baby’s’ life, but tends to take place between 13 and 16 hours after the birds hatch. This ‘window of development’, Lorenz called the critical period (leading to Bowlby creating a similar theory of human attachment). Evaluation of imprinting theory and Lorenz’ research Supporting evidence Guiton (1966) found evidence of imprinting in leghorn chicks, supporting Lorenz. He exposed them to yellow rubber gloves for feeding them during their first few weeks and they became imprinted on the gloves. This supported the view that young animals are not born with a predisposition to imprint on a specific type of object but probably on any moving thing that is present during the critical window of development. We also know this from detailed studies on ducklings who imprinted on a mechanical soft toy dog, a hard plastic mechanical train and a balloon. The theory doesn’t apply to humans (but the idea of a ‘critical period’ may) However, this ethological theory is specific to a small number of animal species NOT humans, therefore it cannot explain why human babies attach. As the whole purpose of psychology is to study human behaviour, Lorenz’ theory is inadequate to explain human attachment and some would argue non-human animal research is inappropriate in the study of Psychology. However, Lorenz research did clearly lead Bowlby to his ‘critical period’ idea in ‘monotropy’, demonstrating its scientific value in leading to attachment research in humans. Animal studies of attachment Lorenz and Harlow Harlow carried out his research using monkeys to test the prevailing idea of the time that babies attached to their mothers because they fed them - Freud’s Cupboard Love Theory had proposed that infants attach to their mothers because they provide them with physical needs – especially food. Harlow and Zimmerman (1959) 4 newborn baby monkeys were placed in separate cages with a wire mother with food and a cloth mother without food (a milk drip). 4 were placed with a cloth mother with food and a wire mother without food (8 in total). Regardless of who provided food, the babies clung mostly to the cloth mother (for on average 18 hours a day compared with 2 spent with the wire ‘mother’). The monkeys were studied over a period of 165 days. Conclusion - This finding suggests that contact is not about food, it is about comfort. Contact comfort is more important than cupboard love. This rejects Freud’s cupboard love theory because it shows that attachment isn’t based on food, because the infant monkeys were attached only to the cloth mothers. Harlow continued to study his rhesus monkeys as they grew up and noted many consequences of their early attachment experiences. He reported that the motherless monkeys developed abnormally. They were socially abnormal – they froze or fled when approached by other monkeys and they were sexually abnormal. They did not show normal mating behaviour and did not cradle their own babies. Harlow also found there was a critical period for these effects. If the motherless monkeys spent time with their monkey peers they seemed to recover but only if this happened before they were three months old. Having more than six months with only a wire mother was something they did not seem able to recover from. Evaluation of Harlow’s research Confounding variable – one criticism is that the two stimulus objects varied in more ways than being cloth-covered or not. The two heads were also different, which may have acted as a confounding variable i.e. it may be the different head that attracted the infant monkeys, not just the comfort of the cloth body. The conclusions may lack internal validity due to this confounding variable. Nevertheless, Harlow’s studies were quickly replicated using identical heads on the cloth and wire mothers, finding that the infant monkeys still attached mostly to the cloth mother – it was indeed the contact comfort provided by the cloth mothers that made attachment more likely than the food. Lack of generalisability – Like Lorenz, Harlow’s studies were on non-human animals The studies were conducted on monkeys and therefore can’t show us anything definite about human attachment. Humans are obviously different to monkeys and the reasons for attachment could be more complex. Human babies need more care and attention than infant monkeys and it likely that a combination of factors is important, not just contact comfort and food. However, there are other advantages to using non-human animals. This sort of research would not be possible with human infants (for ethical and practical reasons!). Monkeys provide a simpler model of behaviour as they are less sophisticated and their behaviours are often easier to interpret. Macaques and humans are also genetically similar, sharing about 94% of their DNA. Nonetheless a small difference in DNA of this kind can make a huge difference. Despite a 1.2% difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees, human brains are 3 times larger than chimpanzee brains (Toates, 2012). We cannot assume that human babies would respond in exactly the same ways as Harlow’s monkeys. Nevertheless, Spitz and Wolf…. Supporting evidence Nevertheless, S and E’s (1964) study of Scottish infants supports Harlow’s view that the essential ingredient for attachment to form is NOT food. 39% of infants attached most to people who did not perform caretaking duties (feeding, changing, etc). This suggests they attached for other reasons. The researchers concluded that the most important things in the development of attachment were how responsive they were to the infant’s behaviour and how much they stimulated the infant. Schaffer and Emerson’s research improved upon Harlow’s studies by studying real infants in their natural environment (where a clear weakness of Harlow was the artificial conditions in which the infant monkeys were raised). This study shows us more accurately how humans form attachment and how attachment is based on complex interactions. Explanations of Attachment (i.e. Theories of Attachment) Learning theory of attachment suggests that the basis for the learning of attachments is the provision of food. An infant will initially form an attachment to whoever feeds it. 1.​ They learn to associate the feeder (usually the mother) with the comfort of being fed and through the process of classical conditioning, come to find contact with the mother comforting. If the mother (initially a NS) is repeatedly paired with an UCS (milk) this eventually leads to a CR of happiness where the mother (now a CS) can produce the CR of happiness without the presence of milk. The baby has learned to associate the mother with happiness. ​ 0.​ They also find that certain behaviors (e.g. crying, smiling) bring desirable responses from others (e.g. attention, comfort), and through the process of operant conditioning learn to repeat these behaviors in order to get the things they want. B.F. Skinner (1938) coined the term operant conditioning; it means changing of behaviour by the use of reinforcement which is given after the desired response. Positive reinforcement strengthens a behavior by providing a consequence an individual finds rewarding. For example, if your mother feeds or cuddles you every time you cry, you are more likely to repeat this behavior in the future, thus strengthening the behaviour of crying. The removal of an unpleasant reinforcer can also strengthen behavior. This is known as negative reinforcement because it is the removal of an adverse stimulus which is ‘rewarding’ to the animal or person. Negative reinforcement strengthens behavior because it stops or removes an unpleasant experience. For example, if a baby is crying, this is unpleasant for the parents. They learn that cuddling or feeding the infant stops the infant crying, acting as negative reinforcement for the parents, so they are likely to repeat the cuddling and/or feeding. Negative reinforcement also occurs in the infant. Hunger is the unpleasant reinforcer that can be ‘switched off’ by the parent providing food to reduce the hunger. Learning Theory Evaluation A strength of the theory is that it has strong elements of common-sense. We can all see how an infant might learn to attach to someone if they are provided with rewards from that person. Infants do learn through association and reinforcement, but food may not be the main reinforcer. However, both theories focus too much on concrete rewards like food. If they incorporated other rewards like cuddling (contact-comfort) or stimulation (fun) the theories would be more comprehensive. Refuting evidence In Harlow’s monkey study, attachment was formed to the soft and cuddly cloth mother even when the wired mother provided milk. This shows how contact comfort is more important than feeding as the basis for attachment, suggesting an evolutionary mechanism. Similarly, S and E’s (1964) finding that 39% of infants formed first attachments to a person who did not carry out caregiving such as feeds, challenges the claim that attachments are based on the association with feeding. Durkin (1995) does not believe that LT can explain the intensity of emotion that the attachment produces. For example, infants may form very strong attachments to mothers who do not fulfil their physical needs or even to people who mistreat them. LT looks at the behaviour only and not the emotions behind it. On the plus side, the theory can be said to be influential in that it has stimulated a lot of research into the interactions that take place between parents and their children. Bowlby’s Evolutionary Theory of Attachment: Monotropy Bowlby’s (1951) Theory was that infants are biologically tuned to attach to one adult female. Internal working model = the infant’s attachment to its mother will provide a template/example on which to base all future relationships. Bowlby thought the initial relationship with the mother would provide the child with a basis on which to form all future close relationships. The continuity hypothesis states that the relationship you have with your mother (as an infant) will influence all your future relationships. Evolutionary theory of attachment (e.g. Bowlby, Harlow, Lorenz) suggests that children come into the world biologically pre-programmed to form attachments with others, because this will help them to survive. It proposed that attachment was an instinctive behaviour pattern that had evolved through the process of natural selection to ensure the survival of the child. From birth, the infant produces innate ‘social releaser’ behaviours such as crying and smiling that stimulate innate caregiving responses from adults. The determinant of attachment is not food but care and responsiveness. Bowlby suggested that a child would initially form only one primary attachment (monotropy) and that the attachment figure acted as a secure base for exploring the world. The attachment relationship acts as a prototype for all future social relationships so disrupting it can have severe consequences. This theory also suggests that there is a critical period for developing an attachment (about 0 -3 or 4 years). If an attachment has not developed during this period then the child will suffer from irreversible developmental consequences, such as reduced intelligence and increased aggression. Evaluation of Monotropy Lack of supporting evidence He based the theory on innate reflexes such as sucking, cuddling and looking which could equally help the infant attach to fathers or others (i.e. to form multiple attachments). Indeed, Schaffer and Emerson’s research cast doubt on Bowlby’s assumptions (that infants form ONE main attachment to an adult female). Bowlby completely disregarded the father’s involvement in attachment as he assumed only mothers were important. The infants’ first major attachment was to the mother in only 65% of cases. Also, 87% of 18 month old infants had formed attachments to more than one person and 32% had at least five attachments, rejecting the notion of ‘mono’ in monotropy. Era-dependence Also, Bowlby’s theory was devised at a time when predominantly women raised children. It is logical that most babies were mostly attached to their mothers, which is why Bowlby speculated that the reflexes help the child attach only to the mother. Nowadays we could argue that the reflexes simply help the infant survive and attach to any human. Bowlby’s theory could have been biased by sexism in the 1950’s and 60’s and men feeling threatened by increasing women’s rights, which is why he placed so much emphasis on the woman’s role in the infant forming a healthy attachment. Nevertheless, the continuity hypothesis has been supported by some studies indicating that early relationships, even when abusive, do tend to follow on through people’s lives – hence Bowlby’s theory may have some value in teaching us about attachment and led to much more research on the topic. Extra eval of Bowlby’s theory Verissimo et al – supports the idea of a continuity hypothesis in terms of early relationships allowing you to make secure friendships later in life BUT this study found that it was the relationship with the FATHER rather than the mother that seemed to impact on a child’s ability to form pre-school friendships! Bowlby absolutely did not anticipate this! – he completely ignored the role of the father in his monotropy theory. Much other research also supports the concepts of internal working model and continuity hypothesis. E.g. McCarthy and Maughan found 72% of women who were abused by their fathers as children, ended up in abusive relationships with their own partners. Similarly, men who were abused as boys often turn into abusers themselves. It seems, indeed, that your first relationships give you an internal working model which is continued throughout a person’s life. Like Bowlby himself admitted, a flawed first relationship with your mother does not doom everyone to a life of terrible relationship – it just makes it more likely. Lorenz – supports the idea of attachment being biological, innate and evolved BUT imprinting does not occur in humans hence is of limited use in terms of supporting Bowlby. Nevertheless, Lorenz idea of a ‘critical period’ was essential for the development of Harlow’s and later, Bowlby’s theories of how this applies to monkeys and humans. Harlow – gives support of Bowlby’s critical period, albeit in non-human animals. Infant monkeys who were denied social interaction could not function as normal healthy, monkeys – they had no internal working model on which to base future monkey relationships. ​ ​ ​ Ainsworth and Bell (1970) Baltimore study using The Strange Situation to investigate how attachments might vary between children. The procedure, known as the ‘Strange Situation’, was conducted by observing the behavior of the infant in a series of eight episodes lasting approximately 3 minutes each: including 2 separations and 2 reunions with the mother Procedure: A time sampling observational technique Strange Situation classifications (i.e. attachment styles) are based primarily on 4 interaction behaviours directed toward the mother in the two reunion episodes 1.​ Proximity and contacting seeking 2.​ Contact maintaining 3.​ Avoidance of proximity and contact 4.​ Resistance to contact and comforting The observer notes down the behaviour displayed during 15 second intervals and scores the behavior for intensity on a scale of 1 to 7. Results - Attachment Styles Ainsworth (1970) identified three main attachment styles, secure (type B), insecure avoidant (type A) and insecure ambivalent/resistant (type C). She concluded that these attachment styles were the result of early interactions with the mother. A forth attachment style known as disorganized was later identified (Main, & Solomon, 1990). Resistant Attachment Secure Attachment 70% 15% Avoidant Attachment 15% (happy and uses mum as (clingy and resistant at (e.g. independent and safe base) the same time – happy ignoring mum) ambivalent)  Infant shows signs of Infant shows no sign of Separation Distressed when mother intense distress when distress when mother Anxiety leaves. mother leaves. leaves. Avoidant of stranger Infant is okay with the Stranger Infant avoids the stranger when alone but friendly stranger and plays normally Anxiety - shows fear of stranger. when mother present. when stranger is present. Child approaches mother Reunion Positive and happy when Infant shows little interest but resists contact, may behaviour mother returns. when mother returns. even push her away. Will use the mother as a Infant cries more and Mother and stranger are Other safe base to explore their explores less than the able to comfort the infant environment. other 2 types. equally well. Strange Situation Conclusion Ainsworth (1978) suggested that behavior in the strange situation classification was determined by the behavior of the primary carer (in this case the mother). For example, securely attached infant are associated with sensitive & responsive primary care. Insecure ambivalent (resistant) attached infants are associated with inconsistent primary care. Sometimes the child’s needs and met and sometime they are ignored by the mother / father. Insecure avoidant infants are associated with unresponsive primary care. The child comes to believe that communication of needs has no influence on the mother / father. Evaluation of the Strange Situation The strange situation classification has been found to have good reliability. This means that it achieves consistent results. For example, a study conducted in Germany found 78% of the children were classified in the same way at ages 1 and 6 years (Wartner et al. 1994). Lamb et al. (1985) have criticized it for being highly artificial and therefore lacking ecological validity. The child is placed in a strange and artificial environment, and the procedure of the mother and stranger entering and leaving the room follows a predetermined script. Mary Ainsworth's conclusion that the strange situation can be used to identify the child's type of attachment has been criticized on the grounds that it identifies only the type of attachment to the mother. The child may have a different type of attachment to the father or grandmother, for example (Lamb, 1977). This means that it lacks validity, as it is not measuring a general attachment style, but instead an attachment style specific to the mother. The strange situation has also been criticized on ethical grounds. Because the child is put under stress (separation and stranger anxiety), the study has broken the ethical guideline protection of participants. However, in its defence the separation episodes were curtailed prematurely if the child became too stressed. Also, according to Marrone (1998), although the Strange Situation has been criticized for being stressful, it is simulating everyday experiences, as mothers do leave their babies for brief periods of time in different settings and often with unfamiliar people such as baby sitters. Three differences in the behaviour of securely attached and insecurely attached infants 1.​ Reunion behaviour: The secure baby will seek contact with the mother when she returns but insecure-ambivalent will reject attempts to comfort them (angry), insecure-avoidant do not seek comfort. 2.​ Separation distress: Secure infants will show distress when the mother leaves (even if a stranger is still there) while insecure-avoidant infants will only be truly distressed when left alone. Insecure-ambivalent are extremely upset. 3.​ Treatment of the stranger: Secure infants treat the mother and stranger very differently but insecure-avoidant infants treat them in a similar way. Insecure-ambivalent actively resist the strangers efforts to make contact Cultural variations in attachment Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) A meta-analysis was conducted using 32 studies from 8 countries that conducted the strange situation on over 2000 babies – in order to allow objective comparisons between cultures. The results percentages of how many infants fall under each of the 3 categories. The findings show Type B is the most common attachment in all cultures, however the distribution of insecure attachments varied greatly between cultures, with Type A being predominant in Western cultures and Type C in Israel and Japan. Variations between results of studies within the same country were 150% (1.5X) greater than those between countries. In the USA for example one study found 46% secure while another found 90%! Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) Evaluation Ethnocentric procedure - A main criticism of the study is that a large percentage of infants in each country are labelled ‘insecure’ due to their reactions in the strange situation. This label could be inappropriate as the study is not suitable for all infants. One would expect infants in Western countries to be used to separations from their mothers. Many attend day care or are left with other relatives for several hours at a time, thus when left with a stranger they are not particularly upset. The babies might not be insecure, rather they are attached to many people and are confident that the mother will come back. This ethnocentricity is shown by… Takahashi (1990) noted that in Japan it is common for babies to be reared in virtual isolation with the mother only. Men in Japan work very long hours, and day care is rare in comparison with mothers rearing children. In Japan mothers are very rarely separated from their babies. It is unsurprising then that babies reared in such a way fear being separated from the mother and fear strangers as they are not used to either occurrence. This may not mean they are insecure. The categories used could therefore be ethnocentric and are not a particularly good measure of how securely attached an infant is. Also, in the reunion stage Japanese mothers rushed to the baby and scooped them up, meaning the child’s response was hard to observe. Another example of an imposed etic might be the idea that a lack of separation anxiety and lack of pleasure on reunion indicate an insecure attachment. In Germany this behaviour is encouraged and is seen as independence and not a sign of insecurity. Era-dependent findings - The percentages of infants found in each category might now be era-dependent because the studies were carried out in the 1970s and 80s. Nowadays day care is much more common therefore there might be many more anxious avoidant children. A new category might be needed to define these children or a new method would be needed to find out how well they are actually attached to their mothers. Simonella et al’s (2014) study in Italy shows how Ainsworth’s findings lack temporal validity. The researchers assessed 76 12 month olds using the Strange Situation finding only 50% secure and 36% insecure-avoidant. The researchers suggest that this is because increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional childcare. ​ The Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis (MDH) Bowlby (1953) Bowlby’s Theory of Monotropy led to the formulation of his maternal deprivation hypothesis. Essentially, Bowlby suggested that the nature of monotropy (attachment being a vital and close bond with just one attachment figure, typically the mother) meant that a failure to form or a breakdown of the maternal attachment would lead to serious negative consequences on the child’s social, intellectual and emotional development, possibly including affectionless psychopathy (lack of social conscience associated with separation within first two years of life). Bowlby (1953) also claimed that many of these negative effects could be permanent and irreversible. He also argued that 25% (rather than 100%) of children suffer long-term damage from maternal deprivation involving long-term disruption of attachment. Bowlby also believed that children will only suffer the negative effects of frequent or prolonged separations if they occur during the critical period – up to 5 years. Research into the maternal deprivation hypothesis (Bowlby, 1946, 1956) 44 adolescent juvenile delinquents appeared to have little guilt, shame or remorse for their actions - Bowlby called this ‘affectionless psychopathy’. 17 of the 44 had been separated from their mothers during the first five years of life, - a strong link between maternal deprivation and delinquency. Criticism – there was no appropriate control group (of normal teenagers) to compare these figures to – we DON’T know what proportion of normal, non-criminal children also suffer maternal deprivation. MDH is based upon extremely flawed evidence. 60 children who had spent time apart from their mothers in a tuberculosis (TB) sanatorium before the age of 4 showed lower achievement in school, demonstrating how MD causes inferior intellectual development. However, it inappropriate to infer cause and effect here, due to the lack of control of confounding variables in such natural studies. The children were in an under-stimulating environment NOT just maternally deprived. It is NOT just the lack of a mother causing their mental retardation. Evaluation of Bowlby’s research into maternal deprivation His research employed a retrospective and correlational methodology. We cannot infer cause and effect due to lack of control of confounding variables. Rutter (1972) pointed out that Bowlby had grouped together a wide variety of experiences under the general heading ‘maternal deprivation’ such as hospitalisation, death of mother and family breakdown – all of which could have different effects on children. Family discord was the actual cause of the children’s lasting problems. This reveals a problem with all such natural studies – lack of control. The variables are naturally occurring (e.g. death of the mother) and because this event changes the child’s life and circumstances in many ways, we are unable to isolate the impact of just one variable on the individual. Czech Twins Case Study – Koluchová (1976) evidence against the permanent effects of maternal deprivation Identical twin boys born in 1960. Normal development up to 18 months. - From then until age 7 they were kept in a cellar and beaten from time to time. Despite their severe maternal deprivation they are now said to be entirely stable, lacking abnormalities and enjoying warm relationships. One is a computer technician and the other a technical training instructor. The twins’ recovery strongly rejects the idea of the effects of maternal deprivation being permanent. They had no long term effects of MD in terms of their intellects, future relationships and ability to function in education and the workplace. Romanian Orphan Studies – Rutter – The Effects of Institutionalisation Aim: To find out whether institutionalisation/(maternal deprivation?) has lasting effects Rutter et al. are carrying out an ongoing longitudinal study, comparing Romanian orphans who were adopted by UK families with UK-born adoptees who were placed with families before they were six months of age. The Romanian adoptees entered the orphanage as small babies of between one and two weeks old. Conditions in the institutions were very poor. Procedure: A naturally occurring independent groups design was used: 58 babies were adopted before they were 6 months old 59 were adopted between 6 and 24 months 48 were classed as late-placed adoptees, between 2 and 4 years of age A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group Age of adoption was the naturally occurring independent variable – i.e. the length of time they were in institutional care/ the amount of time they had suffered MD. This is a natural experiment. At the time of adoption, over half the Romanian children showed evidence of severe malnourishment - They were in the bottom third of the population for weight and head size – and showed signs of delayed intellectual development. Some of these children were assessed at 4, 6, 11 and 15 using a range of measures including: ​ parental reports at age four to six, focusing on the child’s willingness to go off with strangers ​ a home observation at age 6 measuring the extent to which children made inappropriate contact with the researcher (e.g. trying to sit on knee, cuddle up or hold the researcher’s hand) ​ assessment of peer relations at age 11 via teacher and parent reports Findings: Children adopted by British families before the age of 6 months showed normal development and behaved very similarly to the UK adoptees. However, children adopted after 6 months showed more disinhibited attachment, suggesting that it was due to spending longer periods in institutions. In 2007, some of these children were followed up at age 11. Rutter found that the disinhibited behaviour pattern had persisted in many adoptees. Of the 83 Romanian children showing mild or marked disinhibited attachment at age six, 54% of these still showed this 5 years later. Another impact of institutionalisation found in Rutter’s research was retarded intellectual development. At age 11 the mean IQ of children adopted before the age of six months was 102 (completely normal – average IQ is 100), compared to 86 for children adopted between six months and two years and only 77 for those adopted after two years. This finding gives strong supporting evidence that early institutionalisation can have long lasting intellectual effects – These differences remained at age 16. Nevertheless, despite showing signs of mental retardation when they arrived in Britain, when adopted before the age of 6 months, most children were able to catch up with the control group by age four. Conclusions: The effects of maternal privation are long-lasting. Regarding Bowlby’s theory, these children were deprived of having one female attachment figure for different amounts of time, hence suffered MD. The more maternal privation the children suffered in this study, the more likely they were to have marked disinhibition – this suggests maternal privation has long-term effects on attachment. If privation occurs for over six months a child is more likely than not to show disinhibited attachment. The findings show if children are given a carer within their first 6 months they are most likely to turn out normal, regarding their later attachment styles. It could be concluded that the later adopted children did not have an internal working model on which to base their future relationships, hence they show disinhibited attachment instead of attaching to one or two caregivers or close friends. The findings reject Bowlby’s idea that the critical period is as late as 2 years because most of the children in Rutter’s study who were adopted during the 2 year period did not develop normal attachment styles. Evaluation of Rutter’s research into Romanian Orphans Rutter’s research focused only on the amount of time children spent in institutions – this gives us a limited idea of the cause of their problems. Smyke et al. (2007) found that children’s cognitive development and social competence depended far more on the quality of caregiving than on the percentage of their lives they had spent in an institution. Thus, being brought up in an institution doesn’t inevitably cause major problems provided caregiver quality is high. Smyke et al (2007) studied young children raised in institutions in Romania. Compared to young children of the same age raised at home by parents, those in institutional care showed severe delays in cognitive development, poorer physical growth, and much inferior social competence. But, when he considered the factors responsible for these problems, two factors were found to be important: The percentage of their life spent in the institution and the quality of caregiving they had received. Rutter et al. (2010) also found the outcomes varied very much from child to child. Most children recovered almost totally from their institutionalisation but a minority did not. The marked recovery shown by a clear majority of the children reflects the loving care provided by most of the families adopting these children. Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (12 mark demo essay) It has been proposed by researchers like Bowlby that institutionalisation will have harmful effects on children’s later attachment patterns due to the failure of the child to attach to one adult female in its early years of life (maternal deprivation). 2 well-known studies have shown a clear effect of institutionalisation on young children is ‘disinhibited attachment’ – This is when children do not discriminate in their attachment behaviours and show attention-seeking behaviours towards all adults, even strangers. Tizard and Hodges’ (1989) study on the effects of privation and institutional care gave evidence of this - in children the age of 2 who showed no fear of strangers and would run to any adult who entered the room. They even cried when the adult left, even though they had no attachment with them. This study suggests that their maternal deprivation/ lack of attachment figure caused them to display inappropriate, unusual attachment behaviour to adult strangers. However, it can be argued that these effects are short term as 20/21 of the children who were later adopted showed close attachment to their adopted parents by the age of 8 and 17/21 by age 16. Thus the findings reject Bowlby’s view as they show early maternal deprivation/institutionalisation does not necessarily ruin the child’s chances of attaching to others later in life. This study showed that loving relationships and high quality care can reverse the effects of institutionalisation. Rutter et al’s (2007) ongoing study also gave evidence of disinhibited attachment in adoptees aged 6 and then again in over half of the children (54%) at age 11. Many of these children also needed help from special educational and/or mental health services. The more maternal deprivation the children suffered in this study, the more likely they were to have marked disinhibition – this suggests maternal privation caused by institutionalisation has long-term effects on attachment. If maternal deprivation/institutionalisation occurs for over six months a child is more likely than not to show disinhibited attachment. The findings also show if children are given a carer within their first 6 months they are most likely to turn out normal, regarding their later attachment styles. Another impact of institutionalisation found in Rutter’s research was retarded intellectual development. At age 11 the mean IQ of children adopted before the age of six months was 102 (completely normal – average IQ is 100), compared to 86 for children adopted between six months and two years and only 77 for those adopted after two years. This finding gives strong supporting evidence that early institutionalisation can have long lasting intellectual effects – These differences remained at age 16. Nevertheless, despite showing signs of mental retardation when they arrived in Britain, when adopted before the age of 6 months, most children were able to catch up with the control group by age four. Bowlby might have concluded that the later adopted children did not have an internal working model on which to base their future relationships, hence they showed disinhibited attachment instead of attaching to one or two caregivers or close friends. Nevertheless, Rutter’s research focused only on the amount of time children spent in institutions – this gives us a limited idea of the cause of their problems. Smyke et al. (2007) found that children’s cognitive development and social competence depended far more on the quality of caregiving than on the percentage of their lives they had spent in an institution. Thus, being brought up in an institution doesn’t inevitably cause major problems provided caregiver quality is high. Bowbly – Continuity hypothesis - the relationship between an infant and their mother figure provided the basis for later adult relationships. The young child develops an internal working model from their first relationship that serves as a template for later attachments. Young children also develop characteristic attachment styles in their early relationships. Ainsworth divided attachment styles into three categories: secure (Type B), insecure-avoidant (Type A) and Insecure-ambivalent/resistant (Type C). Research has taken place to establish whether these attachment styles influence children’s friendships, and affect adolescent and adult relationships as Bowlby predicted. Studies on the influence of early attachment on childhood relationships Verissimo, Santos, Vaughn, Torres, Monteiro and Santos (2011) studied the impact of attachments with mothers and fathers on the formation and maintenance of friendships in a sample of preschool children. At age four, each child was assessed for the number of reciprocated friends. A secure attachment between child and father was a clear predictor of friendship regardless of the relationship between a pre-schooler and their mother. These findings imply that the quality of the interaction between child and father is important for late social competence, emphasising the importance of fathering. * eval opportunity – link back to Bowlby – seems to reject ‘monotropy’ theory and the importance of the mother. Also contrasts with Grossman’s finding (see ‘role of father’. Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) study the influence of early attachment on adult relationships Hazan and Shaver - ‘Love Quiz’ in the Rocky Mountain News (an American local newspaper) attracted 620 responses (a volunteer sample). The quiz asked questions about love, current attachment experiences and about attachment history to identify current and childhood attachment types. The prevalence of attachment styles was similar to that found in infancy – 56% were classified as secure, 25% avoidant and 19% resistant. They also found a positive correlation between attachment type and love experiences. Securely attached adults described their love experiences as happy, friendly and trusting; they emphasised being about to accept and support their partner despite faults. Their relationships were more enduring – 10 years on average compared to 5-6 for resistant and avoidant participants. The securely attached participants also had a more positive internal working model regarding love and romantic relationships. Evaluation of Hazan and Shaver’s research Their research was correlational, hence we cannot infer cause and effect. i.e. we cannot claim that their early attachment style caused their current internal working model or their current relationship style. They did not actually test the impact of early attachment style on later relationships, hence it doesn’t off valid evidence for Bowlby’s idea. The Love Quiz focused more on how a secure attachment relates to a happy successful relationship, rather than how early relationships follow you through life. There could be other variables that have caused this apparent relationship – variables that affect past and current relationship styles such as temperament or appearance. The limited classification of early attachment type (simply asking questions about ‘internal working model’) was retrospective – this means the questionnaire relied on memory and questions the validity of the results. Nevertheless, an ongoing longitudinal study (Simpson et al., 2007) assessed infant attachment type at one year and supported H and S’s findings. Participants who were securely attached as infants were rated as having higher social competence as children, were closer to their friends at age 16, were more expressive and were emotionally attached to their romantic partners in early adulthood. Supporting evidence from studies of victims of child abuse Alpert found that adults who had suffered sexual and physical abuse as children had damaged ability to trust people and felt isolated from others. Also, Springer found child sexual abuse victims experience difficulty forming healthy relationships in adulthood. Refuting evidence against continuity hypothesis McCarthy and Maughan (2010) found evidence that insecure attachment in childhood isn’t necessarily associated with poor adult relationships. They studied a high-risk sample of women all of whom reported negative parenting in childhood. Of those who reported insecure attachment in childhood, 28% nevertheless had good and satisfying adult relationships. Conclusion: There is some strong evidence showing that early attachment influences later child and adult relationships from research on early parent-infant attachments and child abuse. Nevertheless, poor early attachment does not doom an individual to a life of poor relationships. Free will can also play a role in overcoming early adversity and many individual differences could also be important in dictating the success of your adult relationships. Some children (e.g. Koluchova’s twins) show much resilience to an absence of close attachments in childhood and develop excellent relationships in later life.