Attachment Study PDF

**Attachment** **Caregiver-Infant Interactions in Humans: Reciprocity and Interactional Synchrony** **1. Understanding the Main Study (AO1)** - **Aim of the Studies**:\ Research into reciprocity and interactional synchrony aims to understand how social interactions between caregivers and infants contribute to the development of attachment. Key questions include when these interactions begin and their significance in forming emotional bonds. - **Method and Procedure**:\ Researchers, such as Brazelton (1975) and Meltzoff and Moore (1977), used controlled observational methods. For instance, Meltzoff and Moore asked mothers to display facial expressions (e.g., tongue sticking out) to their infants while recording the infants' responses. Videos allowed independent observers to code behaviours frame by frame, enhancing reliability. - **Key Findings**: - Brazelton (1975) described reciprocity as a 'dance', emphasising the mutual responsiveness between infants and caregivers. - Meltzoff and Moore (1977) found that infants as young as two weeks mirrored facial expressions, supporting the concept of interactional synchrony. - Isabella et al. (1989) observed 30 mother-infant pairs, concluding that greater synchrony correlated with stronger attachments. - **Theoretical Context**:\ These behaviours highlight the innate nature of attachment mechanisms, as theorised by Bowlby, and form part of the evolutionary explanation for the development of social bonds. **2. Supporting and Contradictory Studies (AO1 & AO3)** - **Supporting Studies**: - Feldman and Eidelman (2007) found that mothers notice and respond to approximately two-thirds of an infant's alert phases, which are crucial for effective reciprocity. - Condon and Sander (1974) demonstrated interactional synchrony from birth by analysing infant-caregiver interactions frame-by-frame. - **Contradictory Evidence**:\ Koepke et al. (1983) failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moore's findings, questioning their validity. The differences in results may reflect methodological inconsistencies. - **Similarities and Differences**:\ All studies agree on the significance of caregiver sensitivity, but discrepancies in findings suggest a need for further standardisation in methodology. - **Reliability and Generalisability**:\ Filmed observations enhance reliability, but cultural differences (e.g., levels of physical interaction across societies) may limit generalisability. **3. Evaluation of the Studies (AO3)** - **Strengths**: - High inter-rater reliability due to filmed observations ensures consistent coding. - Ethical methods protect infants from harm and reflect natural behaviours. - Findings contribute significantly to understanding early attachment, supporting Bowlby's theories. - **Limitations**: - Difficulty in interpreting infant behaviour: Movements may be random rather than intentional responses. - Cultural bias: Interactional synchrony may not be universal, as responsiveness varies globally. - Limited ecological validity: Laboratory settings may not accurately reflect natural caregiver-infant interactions. **4. Application (AO2)** - Findings inform interventions to improve parent-infant relationships, such as parent-infant therapy for post-natal depression. - Training programmes for caregivers in orphanages can enhance the likelihood of secure attachments forming, reducing long-term developmental issues. **5. Evaluation of Theories (AO3)** - Interactional synchrony and reciprocity align with Bowlby's evolutionary perspective, suggesting these behaviours are biologically pre-programmed to enhance survival. - Contradictions with Learning Theory: Findings emphasise the importance of emotional responsiveness over food provision, challenging the "cupboard love" theory. **6. Critical Thinking and Wider Issues (AO3)** - **Debates**: - Nature vs Nurture: Innate synchrony supports the nature argument, but environmental factors (e.g., maternal sensitivity) emphasise nurture. - Reductionism: Focusing solely on observable behaviours may neglect broader influences, such as the caregiver's psychological state. - **Ethics and Culture**: - Western cultural bias limits the applicability of findings to collectivist cultures, where caregiving is often shared. - **Paradigm Influence**: - The studies reflect an interactionist approach, integrating biological predispositions with learned behaviours. **Stages of Attachment Identified by Schaffer, Including Multiple Attachments** ####. **1. Understanding the Main Study (AO1)** - **Aim of the Study**:\ Schaffer and Emerson (1964) aimed to investigate the development of attachment in infants, focusing on the stages of attachment and the concept of multiple attachments. - **Method and Procedure**: - The study was conducted in a working-class area of Glasgow with 60 infants (31 males, 29 females). - Researchers used a longitudinal design, observing infants' interactions with their primary attachment figures (PAFs) over their first 18 months. Mothers were interviewed to assess the infants' reactions to separations and the presence of strangers. - Attachment behaviours such as separation anxiety and stranger distress were key indicators of attachment. - **Key Findings**: - Four stages of attachment were identified: 1. **Asocial Stage (0--6 weeks)**: Infants show similar responses to people and objects but display a preference for social stimuli. 2. **Indiscriminate Attachment (6 weeks--7 months)**: Infants prefer people to objects and accept comfort from any adult. No separation or stranger anxiety is evident. 3. **Specific Attachment (7--12 months)**: Infants form a strong attachment to one PAF, exhibiting separation and stranger anxiety. 4. **Multiple Attachments (12+ months)**: Infants develop secondary attachments to other caregivers, siblings, or grandparents. - By 12 months, 78% of infants had formed multiple attachments. - **Theoretical Context**:\ Findings support the idea that attachment is a gradual process influenced by both innate predispositions and social interaction. **2. Supporting and Contradictory Studies (AO1 & AO3)** - **Supporting Studies**: - Van Ijzendoorn (1993): Found cultural differences in attachment, with collectivist cultures promoting earlier multiple attachments compared to individualistic cultures. - Tronick et al. (Efe tribe): Infants cared for communally still formed a primary attachment, supporting the idea of a universal sequence of attachment. - **Contradictory Evidence**: - Bowlby's Monotropic Theory emphasises a single primary attachment as the foundation for all others. However, Schaffer and Emerson's findings suggest that multiple attachments can form simultaneously in some cases. - **Reliability and Validity**: - **Strength**: The study's longitudinal design allowed for the observation of genuine developmental changes. - **Weakness**: Use of self-report from mothers may introduce social desirability bias, affecting the validity of findings. **3. Evaluation of the Study (AO3)** - **Strengths**: - High ecological validity: Observations took place in the infants' natural environments, enhancing the realism of behaviours recorded. - Practical applications: The findings have informed childcare practices, such as preparing children for nursery by considering attachment stages. - **Limitations**: - Lack of control over extraneous variables: Individual differences in the infants or family environments may have influenced attachment behaviours. - Asocial stage challenges: Infants' limited mobility and communication make it difficult to observe and interpret their behaviours reliably during this stage. - Temporal and cultural bias: Conducted in 1960s Glasgow, findings may not generalise to contemporary, multicultural societies where caregiving norms differ. **4. Application (AO2)** - Understanding the stages of attachment has been crucial in developing parenting strategies. For example: - Recognising the importance of consistent care during the specific attachment stage can reduce separation anxiety. - Insights into multiple attachments help parents and nurseries mitigate the effects of separation by providing stable secondary attachments. - Policymaking: Schaffer and Emerson's findings have shaped parental leave policies, emphasising the importance of early consistent caregiving. **5. Evaluation of Theories (AO3)** - Schaffer and Emerson's findings challenge Bowlby's idea of monotropy by demonstrating that multiple attachments can form alongside a primary attachment. - Their research supports the idea that attachment develops in a predictable sequence but recognises cultural and individual variations, adding nuance to Bowlby's universal claims. **6. Critical Thinking and Wider Issues (AO3)** - **Debates**: - **Nature vs Nurture**: Schaffer and Emerson highlight the interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors in attachment development. - **Reductionism**: The study's categorisation of stages simplifies a complex process, potentially overlooking emotional and social nuances. - **Ethics and Culture**: - Collectivist cultures, where caregiving is shared among multiple adults, challenge the universality of the stages. For instance, infants in such cultures may skip or blur the "specific attachment" stage. - **Paradigm Influence**: - The study aligns with interactionist approaches, acknowledging both biological instincts (innate attachment drive) and social influences (caregiver sensitivity). **The Role of the Father** **1. Understanding the Concept (AO1)** - **Overview**:\ Research into the role of the father has explored whether fathers contribute differently to a child's development compared to mothers and whether they can serve as the primary attachment figure. - Historically, fathers were seen primarily as economic providers, but modern research highlights their role in emotional, social, and cognitive development. - **Key Points**: - - Fathers are more likely to be secondary attachment figures, with infants forming their primary bond with the mother. - However, fathers can act as primary caregivers, demonstrating similar attachment behaviours to mothers when they adopt the role. - - Fathers typically engage in **playful and stimulating interactions**, fostering exploration and risk-taking. - **Grossman et al. (2002)**: Found that the quality of a father's play was linked to later social competence. - - When fathers become primary caregivers, they exhibit caregiving behaviours typically associated with mothers, such as greater emotional responsiveness. - **Field (1978)**: Fathers as primary caregivers spent more time smiling, imitating, and holding their infants than secondary caregiver fathers. **2. Supporting and Contradictory Studies (AO1 & AO3)** - **Supporting Studies**: - **Schaffer and Emerson (1964)**: - Found that by 18 months, 75% of infants had formed an attachment with their father, demonstrating that fathers are significant attachment figures. - However, only 3% of infants formed a primary attachment with the father. - **Grossman et al. (2002)**: - Conducted a longitudinal study examining the role of fathers in children's attachment and development. - Found that the quality of the father's play was related to adolescent attachments, while the mother's attachment related more to emotional development. - **Field (1978)**: - Observed fathers as primary caregivers and found that they adopt behaviours similar to mothers, such as greater emotional responsiveness. - **Contradictory Evidence**: - **MacCallum and Golombok (2004)**: - Found that children raised in single-mother or same-sex female households did not differ significantly in development compared to those raised in households with fathers. - Suggests that fathers are not essential for healthy development and attachment. - **Geiger (1996)**: - Identified qualitative differences in father-child and mother-child interactions, with fathers focusing on play and mothers on nurturing. **3. Evaluation of the Role of the Father (AO3)** **Strengths** 1. **Flexible Parenting Roles**: - Research demonstrates that fathers can adopt both primary and secondary caregiving roles, challenging traditional gender norms. - Fathers' ability to act as a secure base and provide emotional support highlights their adaptability in caregiving. 2. **Longitudinal Evidence**: - Studies like Grossman et al. provide long-term insights into how the father's role in play contributes to social competence and emotional regulation in adolescence. 3. **Real-World Applications**: - Findings have influenced social policies, such as shared parental leave, allowing fathers to play a greater role in caregiving during infancy. **Limitations** 1. **Inconsistent Findings**: - Studies vary in their emphasis on the father's role, with some focusing on play and others on emotional responsiveness. This inconsistency makes it difficult to establish a definitive understanding of the father's contribution to attachment. 2. **Cultural Bias**: - Research is often conducted in Western societies, where fathers are typically less involved in caregiving roles. In collectivist cultures, fathers may play a different role, or caregiving responsibilities may be more evenly shared among extended family members. 3. **Overemphasis on Biological Differences**: - Critics argue that biological differences (e.g., hormones like oxytocin) are overstated in explaining gendered caregiving roles. - Studies like Field (1978) demonstrate that caregiving behaviours are determined more by role (primary vs secondary caregiver) than by gender. 4. **Ethical and Social Implications**: - Emphasising fathers' roles risks stigmatising single-parent households or same-sex female families. Evidence from MacCallum and Golombok suggests that children's development is not adversely affected by the absence of a father. 5. **Reductionism**: - Research often reduces fathers' roles to specific functions (e.g., play), overlooking the broader and diverse contributions fathers may make to a child's life. **4. Application (AO2)** - **Shared Parental Leave**: - Policies supporting shared parental leave are underpinned by evidence that fathers can form strong attachment bonds and contribute to emotional and social development. - **Parenting Interventions**: - Programmes encouraging fathers' involvement in caregiving aim to promote more balanced parenting roles and improve child outcomes. - **Challenging Stereotypes**: - Research helps challenge traditional views of fathers as secondary caregivers, promoting equality in parenting roles and responsibilities. **5. Critical Thinking and Wider Issues (AO3)** 1. **Debates**: - **Nature vs Nurture**: - Biological differences (e.g., oxytocin levels) suggest innate caregiving tendencies may differ between fathers and mothers. - However, nurture (e.g., societal expectations, cultural norms) also shapes caregiving roles, as evidenced by fathers' increased emotional responsiveness when acting as primary caregivers. - **Determinism vs Free Will**: - The evidence supports free will, as fathers can choose to adopt nurturing and caregiving roles regardless of biological predispositions. 2. **Cultural Considerations**: - In collectivist cultures, caregiving responsibilities are often shared among extended family members, and the father's role may differ significantly from Western norms. 3. **Ethical Implications**: - Focusing on the father's role risks undermining family structures that do not include a father, such as single-mother or same-sex female households. 4. **Paradigm Shifts**: - Early attachment research focused almost exclusively on mothers (e.g., Bowlby), but modern studies have increasingly highlighted the role of fathers, reflecting societal changes in family dynamics and gender roles. **Comparison of Fathers as Primary and Secondary Attachment Figures** **Aspect** **Primary Caregiver Fathers** **Secondary Caregiver Fathers** ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- **Emotional Responsiveness** High: Engage in nurturing and comforting behaviours. Moderate: Focus on play and stimulation. **Attachment Role** Similar to mothers, acting as a secure base. Complementary to the mother's role, enhancing exploration. **Long-Term Impact** Strong influence on emotional and cognitive development. Significant influence on social competence and risk-taking. **Animal Studies of Attachment: Lorenz and Harlow** **1. Understanding the Main Studies (AO1)** - **Lorenz (1935)**: - **Aim**:\ To investigate the mechanisms of imprinting in geese and whether attachment is innate or learned. - **Procedure**: - Lorenz divided a clutch of goose eggs into two groups: 1. **Naturally hatched** with the mother goose. 2. **Incubator-hatched**, where Lorenz was the first moving object seen. - Lorenz observed the behaviour of both groups when released together. - He also studied **sexual imprinting**, examining the geese's preferences for mating partners in adulthood. - **Findings**: - The naturally hatched goslings followed their mother, while the incubator-hatched goslings followed Lorenz. - Imprinting was found to occur during a **critical period** (within hours of hatching). - Imprinting is **irreversible** and has long-term effects. For example, Lorenz observed that geese imprinted on humans displayed courtship behaviours toward humans later in life (**sexual imprinting**). - **Conclusion**: - Attachment behaviours are **innate** and biologically programmed to occur during a critical period, ensuring survival. - **Harlow (1958)**: - **Aim**:\ To investigate whether attachment is based on feeding (learning theory) or comfort. - **Procedure**: - Harlow used **rhesus monkeys**, separated from their mothers at birth, and raised them with two surrogate mothers: 3. **Wire mother** that provided food via a bottle. 4. **Cloth mother** that provided no food but was soft and comforting. - The time the monkeys spent with each mother was measured. - Harlow also observed the monkeys' responses when frightened (e.g., by a mechanical toy) and the long-term effects of maternal deprivation. - **Findings**: - The monkeys spent significantly more time with the cloth mother, seeking comfort when frightened, regardless of whether the wire mother provided food. - Monkeys raised without real mothers displayed severe **social and emotional maladjustment**, including aggression, fearfulness, and difficulty mating. - Female monkeys neglected or abused their offspring. - **Conclusion**: - Comfort and security are more important than food in attachment formation. - Early maternal deprivation has long-term effects on emotional and social development. **2. Supporting and Contradictory Studies (AO1 & AO3)** - **Supporting Evidence**: - **Guiton (1966)**: - Found that chicks imprinted on a yellow rubber glove used during feeding and later attempted to mate with it, supporting the idea of innate attachment mechanisms and sexual imprinting. - **Schaffer and Emerson (1964)**: - Demonstrated that attachment in human infants is based on responsiveness, not feeding, aligning with Harlow's findings. - **Contradictory Evidence**: - **Learning Theory**: Challenges Lorenz and Harlow by arguing that attachment is learned through conditioning (association with food), rather than being innate. **3. Evaluation of the Studies (AO3)** **Strengths** 1. **Significant Theoretical Contribution**: - Both Lorenz and Harlow's studies challenged the dominant learning theory of attachment, providing key evidence for Bowlby's evolutionary theory. - Harlow demonstrated the importance of emotional security over food in attachment formation, influencing later research into caregiver-infant bonds. 2. **Practical Applications**: - Harlow's findings have improved practices in institutional care and animal welfare, highlighting the importance of emotional and social stimulation for healthy development. - Research into the critical period informs adoption and fostering practices, encouraging early placements to facilitate attachment formation. 3. **Controlled Methodologies**: - Both studies used controlled environments to isolate key variables, ensuring reliability. For example, Harlow controlled for comfort and feeding as independent variables. **Limitations** 1. **Generalisability**: - **Species Differences**: - Lorenz's findings are specific to geese, whose attachment behaviours may differ from mammals, including humans. - Harlow's findings, while more applicable to humans, are still based on non-human primates and may not fully reflect the complexity of human attachment. - Humans form attachments over months, not hours, making Lorenz's critical period less applicable to human behaviour. 2. **Ethical Concerns**: - **Harlow**: Monkeys were subjected to severe emotional distress, social isolation, and long-term psychological harm, raising significant ethical concerns. - **Lorenz**: While less ethically contentious, imprinting behaviours could still be considered disruptive to the natural development of geese. - Critics argue that the harm caused to the animals may outweigh the benefits of the research. 3. **Reductionism**: - Both studies focus primarily on innate mechanisms, ignoring the influence of environmental and social factors. - For instance, Harlow's work does not address how caregiver responsiveness shapes attachment beyond the provision of comfort. 4. **Simplistic View of Attachment**: - Lorenz's and Harlow's findings are overly simplistic compared to Bowlby's holistic approach, which integrates both innate mechanisms and environmental influences (e.g., caregiver sensitivity). **4. Application (AO2)** - **Childcare and Adoption**: - Findings highlight the importance of comfort and consistent emotional care in childcare settings, supporting the need for sensitive caregiving in nurseries and foster homes. - Adoption policies prioritise early placement to avoid long-term emotional difficulties associated with maternal deprivation. - **Animal Welfare**: - Harlow's findings informed practices in zoos and laboratories, promoting the need for companionship and stimulation for captive animals. - **Parenting**: - Harlow's research suggests that emotional responsiveness is critical, guiding parenting strategies to foster secure attachments. **5. Critical Thinking and Wider Issues (AO3)** 1. **Debates**: - **Nature vs Nurture**: - Both Lorenz and Harlow support the nature argument, suggesting attachment behaviours are innate and biologically programmed. - However, their findings do not fully address the role of environmental influences, such as caregiver responsiveness or cultural practices. 2. **Ethical Considerations**: - The suffering caused to animals in both studies raises ethical concerns. While the research provided significant theoretical insights, modern ethical guidelines would likely prohibit similar experiments. 3. **Cross-Species Comparisons**: - Lorenz and Harlow's findings demonstrate common attachment behaviours across species, supporting the evolutionary basis of attachment. However, the extent to which these behaviours generalise to humans is debated. 4. **Paradigm Shifts**: - The studies reflect the ethological paradigm dominant in the mid-20th century, focusing on innate mechanisms. Modern research incorporates cognitive and social perspectives, providing a more comprehensive understanding of attachment. **Comparison of Lorenz and Harlow** **Aspect** **Lorenz** **Harlow** -------------------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- **Species Studied** Geese Rhesus Monkeys **Focus** Imprinting and critical periods Comfort vs food in attachment formation **Key Mechanism** Innate imprinting Emotional security and contact comfort **Generalisability to Humans** Low Higher (closer to human behaviour) **Ethical Concerns** Minimal Severe psychological harm to monkeys **Explanations of Attachment: Learning Theory** **1. Understanding the Theory (AO1)** - **Overview**:\ The **learning theory of attachment** is a behaviourist explanation that suggests infants form attachments through conditioning processes, driven primarily by feeding. It is often referred to as the **\"cupboard love theory\"**, as it emphasises the caregiver's role in providing food. - **Key Processes**: 1. **Classical Conditioning**: - Attachment is formed through association. - Before Conditioning: - **Food (UCS)** naturally produces pleasure (**UCR**). - During Conditioning: - The caregiver (**neutral stimulus, NS**) is repeatedly paired with food (**UCS**). - After Conditioning: - The caregiver becomes a **conditioned stimulus (CS)**, and the infant associates them with pleasure (**conditioned response, CR**). - Example: A baby learns to feel pleasure when they see their caregiver because they associate them with being fed. 2. **Operant Conditioning**: - Attachment develops through reinforcement. - Hunger creates a drive in the infant to reduce discomfort. - When the infant cries, they are fed, which reduces their discomfort (**negative reinforcement** for the infant). - At the same time, the caregiver is positively reinforced by the cessation of crying, making them more likely to respond in the future. - This mutual reinforcement strengthens the caregiver-infant bond. 3. **Drive-Reduction Theory**: - Dollard and Miller (1950) suggested that hunger is a **primary drive** (an innate, biological motivator). - Attachment is a **secondary drive**, learned through association with the satisfaction of the primary drive (hunger). **2. Supporting and Contradictory Studies (AO1 & AO3)** - **Supporting Evidence**: - **Skinner's Research**: Demonstrated the principles of operant conditioning in animals, showing how behaviours can be strengthened through reinforcement. - **Dollard and Miller (1950)**: Estimated that infants are fed around 2,000 times in their first year, providing ample opportunities for the association between the caregiver and food to form. - **Contradictory Evidence**: - **Harlow (1958)**: - Found that rhesus monkeys preferred a soft, cloth-covered surrogate mother to a wire mother that provided food. This suggests comfort is more important than food in attachment formation. - **Schaffer and Emerson (1964)**: - Found that 39% of infants formed attachments to someone other than the person who fed them, indicating that responsiveness and emotional interaction are more important than feeding. **3. Evaluation of the Theory (AO3)** **Strengths** 1. **Early Contribution to Understanding Attachment**: - The learning theory provided the first systematic explanation of attachment, focusing on observable behaviours and offering a simple, testable framework. - It influenced subsequent research into attachment, including Bowlby's work. 2. **Applicability to Parenting Strategies**: - Operant conditioning principles, such as positive reinforcement, inform parenting advice (e.g., rewarding desired behaviours like smiling or cooing). 3. **Scientific Credibility**: - The theory is rooted in **empirical evidence** from behaviourist research (e.g., Pavlov's classical conditioning and Skinner's operant conditioning), lending it scientific rigour. **Limitations** 1. **Overemphasis on Feeding**: - Studies by **Harlow (1958)** and **Schaffer and Emerson (1964)** demonstrate that feeding is not the primary basis for attachment. Emotional sensitivity and responsiveness are more critical. 2. **Reductionism**: - The theory reduces complex attachment behaviours to simple stimulus-response mechanisms, ignoring emotional, social, and cognitive factors involved in forming attachments. - It overlooks the importance of **interactional synchrony** and **reciprocity**, as highlighted by **Isabella et al. (1989)** and other research. 3. **Lack of Predictive Validity**: - Unlike Bowlby's monotropic theory, learning theory does not explain long-term consequences of early attachment, such as its influence on adult relationships. 4. **Biological Evidence Contradicts Behaviourism**: - The theory ignores innate behaviours observed in both humans and animals. - For example, Bowlby's work highlights **social releasers** (e.g., crying and smiling), which trigger caregiving responses independent of feeding. - **Lorenz (1952)** found that goslings imprinted on the first moving object they saw, demonstrating attachment behaviours that are not learned. 5. **Cultural Bias**: - The theory reflects Western norms, where feeding is often centralised with one caregiver. In collectivist cultures, caregiving duties are shared, and attachment is less associated with feeding. 6. **Alternative Theories Provide Better Explanations**: - **Bowlby's Monotropic Theory**: - Bowlby argued that attachment is adaptive and evolved to increase survival, focusing on comfort, security, and caregiver sensitivity rather than feeding. - **Hay and Vespo (1988)**: Proposed a **social learning theory** explanation, suggesting that attachment forms through observing and imitating caregiving behaviours. **4. Application (AO2)** - **Parenting Advice**: - Reinforcement principles can help parents strengthen bonds with their infants by responding consistently to their needs. - **Education**: - Operant conditioning principles are widely used in early childhood education to encourage desired behaviours, such as cooperation and social bonding. - **Therapy**: - Learning theory informs behaviourist therapies, such as using positive reinforcement to build trust and attachment in neglected or traumatised children. **5. Critical Thinking and Wider Issues (AO3)** 1. **Debates**: - **Nature vs Nurture**: - Learning theory emphasises nurture, suggesting attachment is a learned behaviour. However, biological evidence (e.g., Bowlby, Harlow) supports the role of innate mechanisms. - **Determinism vs Free Will**: - The theory suggests deterministic outcomes based on early reinforcement patterns, but later experiences (e.g., caregiving changes or interventions) can reshape attachment behaviours. 2. **Reductionism vs Holism**: - The theory is reductionist, simplifying attachment to feeding and reinforcement. Bowlby's approach is more holistic, integrating biological, social, and emotional components. 3. **Ethical Implications**: - Overemphasising feeding risks encouraging caregiving practices that focus on physical needs while neglecting emotional responsiveness, which research shows is more critical for attachment. 4. **Cultural Considerations**: - In collectivist societies, infants often form attachments to multiple caregivers simultaneously, challenging the learning theory's assumption of a single attachment figure linked to feeding**.** **Researcher and Support** - **Harlow** and **Schaffer and Emerson** oppose learning theory by highlighting the role of responsiveness and comfort in attachment. **Explanations of Attachment: Bowlby's Monotropic Theory** **1. Understanding the Theory (AO1)** - **Overview of the Theory**:\ Bowlby's monotropic theory suggests that attachment is an innate, evolutionary behaviour that increases the survival chances of infants. The theory integrates ideas from ethology (e.g., Lorenz) and psychoanalysis (e.g., Freud) to explain how and why humans form attachments. - **Key Components**: 1. **Monotropy**: - Bowlby proposed that infants form one special attachment bond, usually with the primary attachment figure (PAF), often the mother. - Secondary attachments provide additional support but are subordinate to the PAF. 2. **Critical Period**: - Bowlby identified a critical period for forming attachments, from birth to approximately 2.5 years (with the strongest drive occurring between 6 and 12 months). - If a child does not form an attachment within this window, the consequences may be irreversible, leading to emotional, cognitive, and social difficulties. 3. **Social Releasers**: - Infants are born with innate behaviours (e.g., crying, smiling) that elicit caregiving responses from adults. These behaviours are biologically programmed to trigger attachment behaviours. 4. **Internal Working Model (IWM)**: - The IWM is a cognitive framework for understanding relationships, developed through interactions with the PAF. - It shapes expectations about future relationships: - **Secure attachment** leads to positive relationships and trust. - **Insecure attachment** leads to mistrust, dependency, or avoidance. 5. **Continuity Hypothesis**: - Bowlby argued that the type of attachment formed in infancy influences future emotional and social development. Securely attached infants are more likely to become emotionally resilient adults with stable relationships. **2. Supporting and Contradictory Studies (AO1 & AO3)** - **Supporting Studies**: - **Lorenz (1952)**: Demonstrated imprinting in geese, which occurs during a critical period and leads to a strong attachment to the first moving object seen. This supports the idea of an innate attachment mechanism. - **Tronick et al. (Efe Tribe)**: Found that even in collectivist cultures where caregiving is shared, infants form a primary attachment to one specific figure, supporting monotropy. - **Bailey et al. (2007)**: Found that mothers who were insecurely attached to their own mothers were more likely to have insecurely attached children, supporting the IWM and the intergenerational transmission of attachment. - **Contradictory Evidence**: - **Schaffer and Emerson (1964)**: Found that while most infants formed a primary attachment first, 30% of infants formed multiple attachments simultaneously, challenging the universality of monotropy. - **Rutter et al. (Romanian Orphans)**: Showed that attachment can still form after the critical period, suggesting Bowlby's concept of a strict critical period may be overstated and better described as a "sensitive period." **3. Evaluation of the Theory (AO3)** **Strengths** 1. **Theoretical Contribution**: - Bowlby's work revolutionised attachment research by highlighting its evolutionary basis. It challenged behaviourist explanations like the learning theory and provided a more comprehensive account of why attachments form. 2. **Empirical Support**: - Research from **Harlow (1958)** and **Schaffer and Emerson (1964)** supports Bowlby's claim that attachment is not solely based on feeding but emotional responsiveness. - **Sroufe et al. (2005)** found that securely attached children in infancy were more socially competent and had stronger peer relationships in adulthood, supporting the continuity hypothesis. 3. **Real-World Applications**: - Bowlby's findings influenced childcare policies, such as changes in hospital practices to allow parental visits. - Adoption processes now emphasise early placement to maximise the chances of secure attachment formation. **Limitations** 1. **Monotropy Criticism**: - Bowlby's emphasis on a single attachment figure has been criticised for being overly simplistic. Research shows that infants benefit from multiple attachments (e.g., fathers, siblings, grandparents), which provide a wider social network. 2. **Cultural Bias**: - Bowlby's theory is rooted in Western individualistic norms, where independence is prioritised. In collectivist cultures, caregiving is shared among multiple adults, challenging the universality of monotropy. 3. **Overemphasis on Biological Determinism**: - The theory suggests that early experiences are highly deterministic, implying that poor attachment in infancy leads to lifelong difficulties. However, evidence from interventions (e.g., Romanian orphans) suggests recovery is possible, especially with nurturing care. 4. **Ethical Implications**: - Bowlby's emphasis on the mother as the primary caregiver risks stigmatising working mothers and undervaluing the role of fathers or other caregivers. 5. **Alternative Explanations**: - **Kagan's Temperament Hypothesis**: Argues that attachment type is influenced more by an infant's innate temperament than the caregiver's responsiveness. For example, some infants are naturally more sociable or anxious, which affects their attachment behaviours. **4. Application (AO2)** - **Childcare and Hospital Policies**: - Bowlby's work influenced hospital practices, leading to changes such as the introduction of parental visiting hours for children in long-term care. - **Adoption Practices**: - Emphasises early placement of children with adoptive families to ensure secure attachments develop during the sensitive period. - **Therapeutic Interventions**: - Informs therapy approaches for children with attachment disorders, such as building trust and creating a secure base through consistent caregiving. **5. Critical Thinking and Wider Issues (AO3)** 1. **Debates**: - **Nature vs Nurture**: - Bowlby's theory supports the nature argument by suggesting that attachment is innate and evolutionary. However, it also acknowledges nurture through the quality of caregiving influencing attachment outcomes. - **Critical vs Sensitive Period**: - Later research, such as Rutter et al., suggests that while early attachment is important, it is better described as a sensitive period, as recovery is possible outside this window. 2. **Reductionism vs Holism**: - Bowlby's theory is criticised for being reductionist, focusing primarily on the PAF while ignoring wider social influences, such as peer relationships or cultural practices. 3. **Cultural Considerations**: - The theory may not generalise to collectivist societies where multiple attachments are the norm. For example, in the Efe tribe, infants are cared for communally but still show secure attachment patterns. 4. **Ethical Implications**: - Bowlby's emphasis on the mother's role risks reinforcing gender stereotypes and placing undue pressure on mothers to provide sole caregiving. Modern perspectives promote shared caregiving responsibilities. **.** **Ainsworth's 'Strange Situation' and the Types of Attachment** **1. Understanding the Study (AO1)** - **Aim**:\ To investigate differences in attachment styles and identify distinct types of attachment between infants and their primary attachment figure (PAF). - **Procedure**: - The **Strange Situation** was a controlled observation conducted in a laboratory setting. - It involved **8 scripted episodes** lasting about 3 minutes each, designed to progressively increase stress for the infant by introducing separation from the caregiver and interaction with a stranger. - Key behaviours observed: 1. **Exploration and secure-base behaviour**: Does the infant feel confident to explore the room, using the PAF as a secure base? 2. **Stranger anxiety**: How does the infant respond to the presence of a stranger? 3. **Separation anxiety**: How does the infant react when the PAF leaves? 4. **Reunion behaviour**: How does the infant respond when the PAF returns? - Infants' behaviour was recorded and categorised into attachment types. - **Findings**:\ Ainsworth identified **three main types of attachment**: - 1. Infant explores the room but regularly checks in with the PAF (secure base). 2. Moderate separation and stranger anxiety. 3. Joyful reunion behaviour; infant is easily comforted. - 1. Infant explores freely but does not use the PAF as a secure base. 2. Little or no reaction to the PAF leaving or returning. 3. Shows little stranger anxiety and avoids seeking comfort. - 1. Infant does not explore the room, staying close to the PAF. 2. High levels of stranger and separation anxiety. 3. Seeks comfort upon reunion but simultaneously resists it (e.g., pushing away). - Later Research: - **Main and Solomon (1986)**: Added a fourth attachment type, **insecure-disorganised**, characterised by inconsistent behaviours, confusion, and apprehension towards the PAF. **2. Supporting and Contradictory Studies (AO1 & AO3)** - **Supporting Evidence**: - **Bick et al. (2012)**: - Found 94% inter-rater reliability among observers categorising attachment types in the Strange Situation. This demonstrates that Ainsworth's methodology is highly reliable. - **Hazan and Shaver (1987)**: Supported Ainsworth's classifications by showing that early attachment types predict adult romantic relationships (e.g., secure infants tend to have stable, trusting relationships). - **Contradictory Evidence**: - **Kagan (1982)**: Argued that temperament, rather than attachment, influences infant behaviour in the Strange Situation. For example, naturally more anxious infants might display insecure behaviours regardless of the caregiver's sensitivity. - **Main and Weston (1981)**: Found that children behaved differently depending on which parent was present in the Strange Situation, suggesting the study measures a specific relationship rather than the child's overall attachment style. **3. Evaluation of the Study and Findings (AO3)** **Strengths** 1. **Standardised Procedure**: - The Strange Situation uses a highly structured and replicable method, allowing for consistent observations of attachment behaviours across different infants. 2. **Predictive Validity**: - Longitudinal studies (e.g., Sroufe et al., 2005) have demonstrated that secure attachment in infancy predicts positive outcomes in later life, such as better social competence, academic success, and emotional stability. 3. **Ethical Considerations Addressed**: - Although the Strange Situation involves mild stress, Ainsworth ensured it was temporary and infants were quickly reunited with their caregivers, minimising long-term harm. **Limitations** 1. **Cultural Bias and Imposed Etic**: - The Strange Situation was developed in the United States, a Western, individualistic culture that values independence. Its validity may be limited when applied to collectivist cultures. - **Takahashi (1986)**: Found that Japanese infants exhibited extremely high levels of separation anxiety because they are rarely separated from their caregivers in Japanese culture. This led to a higher proportion being classified as insecure-resistant, which may not reflect attachment quality but cultural norms. 2. **Low Ecological Validity**: - Conducted in a laboratory setting, the Strange Situation may not accurately reflect real-world behaviours. - For example, infants may behave differently in their home environment, where they feel more secure. 3. **Reductionist**: - The study focuses solely on the mother-infant dyad and overlooks the influence of other attachment figures, such as fathers, grandparents, or siblings. - **Rutter (1972)** highlighted the role of multiple attachments, which the Strange Situation does not adequately account for. 4. **Alternative Explanations**: - **Temperament Hypothesis**: Kagan (1982) suggested that the Strange Situation measures innate temperament rather than the quality of attachment, challenging Ainsworth's conclusions. **4. Application (AO2)** - **Parenting Interventions**: - Programmes such as **Circle of Security** are designed to help parents recognise and respond to their child's attachment needs, reducing insecure attachments. - **Childcare Practices**: - Informs childcare staff about how to reduce stranger and separation anxiety in nursery settings by promoting secure attachments with key workers. - **Policy Implications**: - Highlights the importance of caregiver sensitivity in fostering secure attachments, influencing early-years education and social work practices. **5. Critical Thinking and Wider Issues (AO3)** 1. **Debates**: - **Nature vs Nurture**: - Ainsworth's findings support the nurture argument, emphasising caregiver sensitivity in determining attachment type. However, temperament research by Kagan highlights the role of innate factors. - **Determinism vs Free Will**: - Suggests determinism, as early attachment types predict future relationships. However, evidence of change through intervention supports free will and adaptability. 2. **Ethical Issues**: - Although designed to minimise distress, placing infants in stressful situations raises ethical concerns, particularly when observations had to be terminated due to extreme anxiety. 3. **Cultural Considerations**: - Cross-cultural research (e.g., **Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg, 1988**) suggests that attachment behaviours vary between cultures. The study's Western bias limits its applicability to collectivist societies. 4. **Paradigm Influence**: - The Strange Situation reflects a behaviourist approach, focusing on observable behaviours. Modern attachment theories incorporate cognitive and biological perspectives, providing a more holistic view. **Cultural Variations in Attachment, Including Van Ijzendoorn** **1. Understanding the Main Study (AO1)** - **Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)**: - Conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies using the Strange Situation across eight countries, encompassing 1,990 infants. - Aim: To investigate the cross-cultural consistency and variability in attachment types. - **Procedure**: - Researchers aggregated and reanalysed data from studies using Ainsworth's Strange Situation, focusing on the prevalence of secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant attachment types. - **Findings**: - Secure attachment was the most common type globally (75% in the UK, 50% in China). - Individualistic cultures (e.g., Germany) showed higher rates of insecure-avoidant attachment due to independence being encouraged. - Collectivist cultures (e.g., Japan) displayed higher rates of insecure-resistant attachment due to infants rarely being separated from their caregivers. - Variation within cultures (1.5 times greater) was larger than variation between cultures. **2. Supporting and Contradictory Studies (AO1 & AO3)** - **Supporting Studies**: - **Tronick et al.** (Efe Tribe, Democratic Republic of Congo): Despite communal caregiving, infants showed a strong preference for their primary attachment figure, supporting Bowlby's monotropic theory and the universality of secure attachment. - **Fox (Israeli Kibbutzim)**: Found that even when infants were cared for by nurses, primary attachments were still formed with biological mothers, supporting universal trends in attachment. - **Contradictory Evidence**: - **Grossmann and Grossmann (1991)**: In Germany, insecure-avoidant attachment was overrepresented, but this behaviour reflected cultural norms of encouraging independence rather than insecure bonding. **3. Evaluation of the Study (AO3)** **Strengths** 1. **Large Sample Size**: - The meta-analysis included almost 2,000 infants, increasing the generalisability of findings and reducing the impact of outliers. 2. **Indigenous Researchers**: - Many studies were conducted by researchers native to the countries being studied (e.g., Takahashi in Japan), reducing cultural misunderstandings and improving validity. **Limitations** 1. **Imposed Etic**: - The Strange Situation, developed in the US, may not accurately assess attachment in non-Western cultures due to differing child-rearing practices (e.g., co-sleeping in Japan). - Japanese infants often displayed high separation anxiety, which may reflect cultural norms rather than genuine insecurity. 2. **Overemphasis on Secure Attachment**: - Differences in attachment types may reflect cultural priorities (e.g., independence in Germany vs interdependence in Japan) rather than universal attachment needs. 3. **Within-Culture Differences**: - The study highlights significant variation within countries (e.g., US studies ranged from 46% to 90% secure attachment), suggesting socio-economic and regional factors play a role. **4. Application (AO2)** - Findings support the development of culturally sensitive childcare policies, such as tailored parenting interventions in multicultural societies. - Helps social workers and psychologists avoid misdiagnosing attachment styles as insecure when they are culturally normative. **5. Critical Thinking and Wider Issues (AO3)** 1. **Debates**: - **Nature vs Nurture**: Supports the idea that attachment behaviours are universal (nature), but cultural differences indicate environmental influences (nurture). - **Cultural Relativism vs Universality**: Challenges the universality of attachment classifications, highlighting the need for cultural relativism in psychological research. 2. **Ethnocentrism**: - The Strange Situation reflects Western ideals of attachment, potentially pathologising non-Western parenting practices.. **Bowlby's Theory of Maternal Deprivation** **1. Understanding the Theory (AO1)** - **Overview of the Theory**:\ Bowlby defined maternal deprivation as the emotional and intellectual consequences of prolonged separation between a child and their mother (or mother substitute). He argued that continuous care from the primary attachment figure (PAF) is critical for normal psychological development, including emotional and intellectual growth. - Distinction between **separation** (temporary absence of the caregiver, e.g., attending nursery) and **deprivation** (long-term or permanent absence without suitable replacement). - Bowlby's work heavily influenced by **Freudian ideas** and ethological studies like Harlow and Lorenz. - **Key Features**: - **Critical Period**: - Bowlby proposed a critical period of up to 2.5 years, during which deprivation would have irreversible developmental consequences. - Continued disruption between ages 2.5 and 5 years could still lead to negative outcomes, though the effects are less severe. - **Effects of Deprivation**: - **Intellectual Development**: Prolonged deprivation can result in delayed cognitive development, such as lower IQ (e.g., findings from Skeels and Dye, 1939). - **Emotional Development**: Maternal deprivation can lead to **affectionless psychopathy**, a condition characterised by the inability to experience guilt or empathy. - **Supporting Study**: - **Bowlby's 44 Thieves Study**: - Aim: To investigate the link between maternal deprivation and emotional maladjustment. - Procedure: - 44 juvenile thieves were compared to a control group of non-delinquent children. Families were interviewed to determine separation histories. - Findings: - 14 of the thieves were diagnosed as **affectionless psychopaths**, and 12 of these had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first 2 years of life. - In contrast, only 2 participants in the control group experienced similar separations. - Conclusion: Prolonged early deprivation is linked to affectionless psychopathy and delinquency. **2. Supporting and Contradictory Studies (AO1 & AO3)** - **Supporting Evidence**: - **Goldfarb (1947)**: Found that children raised in institutions had lower IQs than those who were fostered. - **Skeels and Dye (1939)**: Showed that children in institutions had delayed intellectual development but improved significantly when placed in a stimulating environment. - **Contradictory Evidence**: - **Lewis (1954)**: Replicated Bowlby's study with a larger sample of 500 participants and found no correlation between early maternal separation and later emotional maladjustment. - **Rutter (1981)**: Distinguished between deprivation and privation, arguing that many of Bowlby's participants had experienced privation (failure to form an attachment) rather than deprivation (loss of an existing attachment). **3. Evaluation of the Theory (AO3)** **Strengths** 1. **Practical Applications**: - Bowlby's research influenced changes in childcare policies, such as increased parental visitation in hospitals (e.g., Robertson's work on hospitalised children). - Highlights the importance of early attachments for emotional development, influencing adoption and fostering practices. 2. **Empirical Support**: - The 44 Thieves study, despite methodological issues, provides some evidence for the link between early deprivation and later behavioural issues. - Findings from Goldfarb and Skeels & Dye align with Bowlby's claims about cognitive and emotional effects. **Limitations** 1. **Methodological Issues in the 44 Thieves Study**: - **Researcher Bias**: Bowlby conducted interviews himself and may have unconsciously influenced findings to support his hypothesis. - **Retrospective Data**: Relied on participants' memory of separations, which is subject to inaccuracies. 2. **Overemphasis on the Mother**: - Bowlby's focus on the mother's role reflects historical bias. Modern research highlights the importance of multiple attachment figures, including fathers. 3. **Critical Period vs Sensitive Period**: - Rutter et al. (Romanian orphan studies) showed that recovery is possible after the critical period, suggesting it is better viewed as a "sensitive" period. 4. **Reductionism**: - Ignores other factors, such as the child's temperament (Kagan) or genetic predispositions, which may mediate the effects of deprivation. **4. Application (AO2)** - Informs child welfare policies, such as prioritising fostering over institutional care to minimise deprivation effects. - Highlights the need for emotional care in addition to physical care in hospitals and orphanages. **5. Critical Thinking and Wider Issues (AO3)** - **Nature vs Nurture**: Bowlby's theory integrates nature (innate need for attachment) and nurture (effects of deprivation). - **Ethical Concerns**: Overemphasising maternal deprivation risks stigmatising single mothers or working parents. **Romanian Orphan Studies and the Effects of Institutionalisation** **Romanian Orphan Studies and the Effects of Institutionalisation** **1. Understanding the Main Studies (AO1)** - **Rutter et al. (1998, 2007, 2011)** - **Aim**:\ To investigate the long-term impact of institutionalisation and early privation on children's development, particularly cognitive, emotional, and social outcomes. - **Procedure**: - A longitudinal study following 165 Romanian orphans adopted into UK families. - Participants were assessed at ages 4, 6, 11, and 15 years. - The sample was divided based on the age of adoption: 1. Adopted before 6 months. 2. Adopted between 6 months and 2 years. 3. Adopted after 2 years. - A control group of 52 British children adopted within the first six months was included for comparison. - **Findings**: - **Cognitive Development**: 1. At the time of adoption, Romanian orphans had lower IQs and were physically smaller than British adoptees. 2. By age 4, those adopted before 6 months showed near-normal development and caught up with the British adoptees. 3. Those adopted after 6 months showed persistent cognitive deficits, with lower IQ scores into adolescence. - **Emotional and Social Development**: 1. Disinhibited attachment (e.g., indiscriminate friendliness towards strangers) was more common in children adopted after 6 months. 2. Children adopted before 6 months exhibited typical attachment behaviours and less emotional disturbance. - **Long-Term Effects** (Rutter et al., 2011): 1. At ages 22--25, persistent problems included ADHD, low IQ, and difficulty forming relationships in those adopted after 6 months. - **Conclusion**: 1. The earlier the adoption, the better the developmental outcomes, supporting the idea of a sensitive period for attachment formation. - **Zeanah et al. (2005)** - **Aim**:\ To assess attachment types in institutionalised children using the Strange Situation. - **Procedure**: - Studied 95 Romanian orphans aged 12--31 months who had spent 90% of their lives in an institution. - Compared with a control group of children who had never been institutionalised. - **Findings**: - Only 19% of the institutionalised group were securely attached, compared to 74% of the control group. - 44% of the institutionalised children displayed disinhibited attachment compared to 20% of the control group. - **Conclusion**: Institutionalisation significantly affects attachment security and increases the likelihood of disinhibited attachment. **2. Supporting and Contradictory Studies (AO1 & AO3)** - **Supporting Evidence**: - **Le Mare and Audet (2006)**: - Studied Romanian orphans adopted in Canada. - Found that physical growth deficits (e.g., smaller height) observed at age 4.5 disappeared by age 10.5, demonstrating some recovery from institutionalisation with nurturing care. - **O'Connor et al. (2000)**: - Found that late-adopted Romanian orphans exhibited more emotional and social difficulties, consistent with Rutter's findings on the importance of early adoption. - **Contradictory Evidence**: - **Koluchová (1976)** (Czech twins): - Studied twin boys who experienced severe privation between 18 months and 7 years. - Despite early deprivation, they fully recovered after being placed in a nurturing foster home, challenging the claim that damage from privation is irreversible. **3. Evaluation of the Studies (AO3)** **Strengths** 1. **Real-World Applications**: - Findings have significantly influenced policies on institutional care: - Encouraged the use of foster care over institutional care to provide consistent emotional support. - Led to changes in staffing ratios in orphanages to ensure each child has a key worker. - Highlighted the critical importance of early adoption. 2. **Ecological Validity**: - While the study was conducted under naturalistic circumstances (real-life institutions), it avoided the artificiality of laboratory settings, enhancing external validity. 3. **Longitudinal Design**: - Followed participants over decades, providing insights into the long-term effects of early deprivation and recovery, which is crucial for evaluating sensitive periods of development. **Limitations** 1. **Confounding Variables**: - The Romanian orphans experienced extreme deprivation, including malnutrition and lack of cognitive stimulation, in addition to emotional neglect. These factors make it difficult to isolate the effects of institutionalisation alone. - The variation in care within institutions (e.g., some staff may have been more nurturing) further complicates causal interpretations. 2. **Generalisability**: - Romanian orphanages represent extreme and atypical conditions of deprivation. Findings may not generalise to less severe institutional settings. 3. **Attrition Effects**: - Longitudinal studies often suffer from participant dropouts. The children who remained in the study might differ systematically from those who left, potentially biasing the results. 4. **Ethical Concerns**: - Studying children who experienced severe privation raises ethical issues about whether such research exacerbates their trauma or stigmatises them. **4. Application (AO2)** - **Adoption Policies**: - Findings encourage governments and adoption agencies to prioritise early adoption to improve developmental outcomes. - **Institutional Care Reforms**: - Introduction of key workers in orphanages provides children with consistent emotional care, mitigating the effects of privation. - **Therapeutic Interventions**: - Tailored therapies are developed to address specific issues such as disinhibited attachment and cognitive deficits in children from deprived backgrounds. **5. Critical Thinking and Wider Issues (AO3)** 1. **Debates**: - **Nature vs Nurture**: - The studies support the importance of nurture (e.g., the role of sensitive caregiving in recovery). - However, individual differences in recovery suggest innate factors, such as temperament, may mediate the effects of deprivation. - **Critical vs Sensitive Period**: - Evidence from Rutter and Zeanah supports the idea of a sensitive period rather than a strict critical period, as recovery is possible with appropriate intervention. 2. **Reductionism**: - The research focuses primarily on the institutional environment and does not fully account for other factors, such as pre-existing genetic vulnerabilities or prenatal influences. 3. **Ethical Considerations**: - Raises questions about researchers' responsibility in reporting and addressing the trauma experienced by participants. 4. **Cultural Context**: - While the findings are robust for extreme deprivation, cultural differences in caregiving norms and institutional practices may limit the applicability of the results to other settings.. **The Influence of Early Attachment on Childhood and Adult Relationships** **1. Understanding the Theory (AO1)** - **Overview**:\ Bowlby's monotropic theory proposed that early attachment experiences shape future relationships through the **internal working model (IWM)**. - The **IWM** is a mental template of expectations about relationships, formed during infancy based on the child's attachment with their primary attachment figure (PAF). - **Secure attachment** leads to positive relationship expectations. - **Insecure attachment** (avoidant or resistant) leads to challenges in emotional intimacy or trust. - **Key Predictions**: - - - - **Supporting Studies**: - **Hazan and Shaver (1987)**: - Aim: To investigate the association between early attachment types and adult romantic relationships. - Procedure: - Conducted a **'love quiz'** published in an American newspaper. - Participants completed two questionnaires: 1. One assessed their current and past attachment experiences. 2. The second focused on their romantic relationship experiences. - The sample included 620 respondents (205 men and 415 women). - Findings: - Securely attached individuals described their relationships as happy, friendly, and trusting (56%). - Insecure-avoidant individuals were less likely to trust partners and expressed discomfort with emotional closeness (25%). - Insecure-resistant individuals were overly preoccupied with their relationships, displaying jealousy and clinginess (19%). - Conclusion: Early attachment experiences influence adult romantic relationships. **2. Supporting and Contradictory Studies (AO1 & AO3)** - **Supporting Studies**: - **Kerns (1994)**: Found that securely attached children formed the strongest friendships, whereas insecurely attached children struggled to maintain stable peer relationships. - **Bailey et al. (2007)**: - Studied 99 mothers and their infants. - Found that mothers with insecure attachments to their own PAF were more likely to have insecurely attached infants, supporting the idea of intergenerational transmission of attachment. - **Sroufe et al. (2005)**: The Minnesota Longitudinal Study found that securely attached children grew into socially competent adults with strong peer relationships and higher self-esteem. - **Contradictory Studies**: - **Zimmerman et al. (2000)**: - Studied infant attachment types and adult attachment styles in a longitudinal study. - Found little relationship between early attachment and later romantic relationships, suggesting other factors (e.g., life events) may play a more significant role. - **Becker-Stoll et al. (2008)**: Found no evidence supporting the continuity hypothesis, challenging the predictive power of the IWM. **3. Evaluation of the Theory and Studies (AO3)** **Strengths** 1. **Empirical Support**: - A wealth of longitudinal studies (e.g., Sroufe et al., Bailey et al.) supports the IWM's influence on later relationships. - **Hazan and Shaver's love quiz** provided early, influential evidence linking attachment types to adult romantic behaviour. 2. **Real-World Applications**: - Findings have informed interventions, such as attachment-based therapies for children and adults. - Helps educators and social workers identify and support insecurely attached children, reducing the risk of later relationship difficulties. 3. **Theoretical Contribution**: - Bowlby's concept of the IWM has enhanced understanding of how early life experiences shape personality and relational patterns, influencing multiple fields (e.g., psychology, education, and counselling). **Limitations** 1. **Methodological Issues in Supporting Studies**: - **Retrospective Data**: - Studies like Hazan and Shaver rely on participants recalling early attachment experiences, which are prone to inaccuracies or **recall bias**. - **Social Desirability Bias**: - Participants may modify their responses in questionnaires to appear more secure or successful in relationships. 2. **Correlational, Not Causal**: - Most studies establish correlations rather than causation. For example, attachment style and relationship quality may both be influenced by a third variable, such as temperament or socio-economic status. 3. **Overemphasis on Early Experiences**: - Critics argue that the IWM places too much emphasis on childhood attachment, ignoring the influence of later experiences, such as life events or adult relationships. - **Zimmerman et al. (2000)** found that major life events (e.g., divorce or trauma) were better predictors of adult relationship quality than early attachment type. 4. **Reductionism**: - The theory oversimplifies the complexity of human relationships, reducing them to early attachment experiences and neglecting cultural, social, and biological factors. 5. **Cultural Bias**: - Most supporting research is conducted in Western societies, where autonomy is valued. In collectivist cultures, attachment may be less predictive of future relationships due to differences in social expectations. **4. Application (AO2)** - **Parenting Programmes**: - The theory underpins interventions aimed at breaking the cycle of insecure attachment, such as training parents to be more emotionally responsive. - **Therapeutic Practices**: - Attachment-focused therapies address relationship difficulties by exploring early attachment experiences and revising maladaptive IWMs. - **Education and Social Work**: - Helps professionals identify children at risk of insecure attachments and provide targeted support to improve social outcomes. **5. Critical Thinking and Wider Issues (AO3)** 1. **Debates**: - **Nature vs Nurture**: - Supports nurture by emphasising the role of early caregiving in shaping relational patterns. - However, genetic influences (e.g., temperament, personality) may also contribute to attachment styles and later relationships. - **Determinism vs Free Will**: - The IWM suggests deterministic outcomes based on early experiences, but evidence of change through therapeutic intervention supports the idea of free will and adaptability. 2. **Ethical Implications**: - Overemphasis on early attachment risks blaming parents, particularly mothers, for later relationship difficulties, potentially increasing parental guilt and anxiety. 3. **Cultural Considerations**: - Attachment patterns and relational expectations differ across cultures, suggesting that the IWM may not universally apply. For example, in collectivist cultures, relationships are often shaped by group dynamics rather than individual experiences. 4. **Paradigm Shifts**: - The theory reflects a psychodynamic and evolutionary paradigm. Modern approaches increasingly integrate biological (e.g., genetic predispositions) and social factors to provide a more holistic understanding of relational development. **Caregiver-Infant Interactions in Humans: Reciprocity and Interactional Synchrony** The study of caregiver-infant interactions focuses on understanding the mutual behaviours that contribute to the formation of secure attachments. Two key processes are central to this field: **reciprocity** and **interactional synchrony**. Reciprocity involves a two-way interaction in which both the caregiver and infant respond to and influence one another. This behaviour has been described by Brazelton (1975) as a "dance" between the caregiver and infant, where each partner takes turns responding to the other's signals. For example, a baby may cry, prompting the caregiver to comfort them, leading to the infant becoming calm and responsive. Over time, these reciprocal interactions foster trust and a strong emotional bond. In contrast, interactional synchrony refers to the caregiver and infant mirroring each other's actions or emotions in a coordinated way. Meltzoff and Moore (1977) provided pivotal evidence for this concept by demonstrating that infants as young as two weeks old can imitate facial expressions and gestures, such as sticking out their tongues. Through a controlled observational study, these behaviours were filmed and analysed frame by frame to ensure reliability. Their findings highlighted the importance of early imitation as a precursor to emotional and social connection. Isabella et al. (1989) further demonstrated that high levels of synchrony correlated with stronger attachments, emphasising that synchrony is not merely a behavioural phenomenon but an essential foundation for emotional bonding. Supporting research has confirmed the importance of these processes. Feldman and Eidelman (2007) showed that mothers responded to about two-thirds of their infant's alert phases, reinforcing the significance of caregiver sensitivity. Additionally, Condon and Sander (1974) analysed infant-caregiver interactions from birth and revealed synchrony in movements and vocalisations. However, some researchers, such as Koepke et al. (1983), failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moore's findings, suggesting possible methodological inconsistencies. These discrepancies indicate a need for standardisation in the study of caregiver-infant interactions. Despite its strengths, the research into reciprocity and synchrony is not without limitations. A primary challenge lies in interpreting infant behaviour. Critics argue that behaviours such as smiling or sticking out the tongue may be random rather than deliberate attempts at synchrony. Additionally, the research has been criticised for cultural bias, as interactional synchrony and reciprocity may not be universal. For example, in some cultures, physical interaction with infants is less common, which might affect the generalisability of findings. Furthermore, much of the research was conducted in controlled laboratory settings, which, while ensuring high reliability, may not accurately capture naturalistic interactions, limiting ecological validity. These findings have significant real-world applications. For instance, understanding the importance of reciprocity and synchrony has informed interventions aimed at improving caregiver-infant relationships, especially in cases of post-natal depression. Such interventions encourage parents to recognise and respond sensitively to their infants' signals. Additionally, training programmes for orphanage staff have been developed to enhance the likelihood of secure attachment formation in institutionalised children, reducing long-term developmental issues. Theoretically, the research aligns with Bowlby's evolutionary perspective, which argues that attachment behaviours are biologically programmed to enhance survival. By prioritising caregiver sensitivity and interaction, these studies challenge the learning theory of attachment, which emphasises feeding as the primary motivator for bonding. Moreover, the findings contribute to debates such as **nature vs nurture**, as innate synchrony supports the role of biological predispositions, while environmental factors like caregiver responsiveness highlight the importance of nurture. However, critics argue that the focus on observable behaviours may oversimplify the complex interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors, making the research somewhat reductionist. Additionally, Western cultural bias raises questions about the universality of these findings in collectivist societies, where caregiving responsibilities are often shared. **Stages of Attachment Identified by Schaffer, Including Multiple Attachments** Schaffer and Emerson's (1964) research on attachment development provided a foundational understanding of how infants form emotional bonds with their caregivers. The study aimed to identify stages of attachment and the timeline for developing multiple attachments. Conducted in Glasgow, the study followed 60 working-class infants over their first 18 months of life. The researchers used naturalistic observations and interviews with mothers, focusing on key behaviours such as separation anxiety and stranger anxiety. By observing the infants at monthly intervals and again at 18 months, Schaffer and Emerson were able to identify patterns in attachment formation. The study revealed four distinct stages of attachment. The first stage, the **asocial stage** (0--2 months), is characterised by infants responding similarly to people and inanimate objects, although they show a preference for familiar individuals. In the **indiscriminate attachment stage** (2--7 months), infants begin to display a clear preference for human interaction over objects and can be comforted by anyone, showing no separation or stranger anxiety. The **specific attachment stage** (7--9 months) marks a significant milestone, as infants form a strong attachment to a single figure, usually the primary caregiver, and show signs of separation and stranger anxiety. Finally, the **multiple attachment stage** (10+ months) is when infants form secondary attachments to other caregivers, such as fathers, siblings, and grandparents. By 12 months, 78% of infants in the study had formed multiple attachments. Schaffer and Emerson's research has been supported by cross-cultural evidence. For example, Van Ijzendoorn (1993) found that infants in collectivist cultures form multiple attachments earlier than those in individualistic cultures, reflecting differences in caregiving practices. Additionally, Tronick et al.'s research on the Efe tribe, where communal caregiving is common, supports the notion of early multiple attachments. However, Bowlby's emphasis on monotropy---a single primary attachment---seems to conflict with Schaffer and Emerson's findings. Moreover, Rutter distinguished between primary and secondary attachments, arguing that each serves distinct functions in a child's development. While the study's longitudinal design allowed researchers to track the progression of attachment behaviours over time, its methodology had limitations. Self-reports from mothers, who were untrained observers, may have introduced bias, as their descriptions of their infants' behaviours could have been influenced by **social desirability bias**. Furthermore, the sample consisted entirely of working-class families in 1960s Glasgow, limiting the generalisability of findings to other socio-economic or cultural contexts. The asocial stage, in particular, has been criticised as difficult to assess due to infants' limited mobility and expression, raising questions about the reliability of observations at this stage. The findings have significant applications in understanding child-rearing practices. For example, recognising the importance of secondary attachments has influenced childcare policies, such as encouraging fathers and other caregivers to play active roles in nurturing children. Moreover, the research provides reassurance to parents returning to work that their infants can form secure attachments with multiple caregivers, such as childminders. However, the Western-centric view of attachment stages must be considered cautiously when applied to collectivist cultures, where caregiving is distributed across a wider social network. **The Role of the Father** The role of the father in attachment has been a growing area of interest, as traditional views of fathers as secondary caregivers have evolved to recognise their contributions to emotional, social, and cognitive development. Research has focused on whether fathers can act as primary attachment figures and how their role differs from that of mothers. While fathers are more commonly secondary attachment figures, studies have shown they can adopt primary caregiving roles, exhibiting similar attachment behaviours to mothers when they do so. Field (1978) found that fathers who acted as primary caregivers demonstrated increased emotional responsiveness, spending more time smiling, imitating, and holding their infants compared to fathers in secondary roles. This suggests that caregiving behaviours are not biologically determined but depend on the role adopted by the father. Similarly, Grossman et al. (2002) conducted a longitudinal study and found that while the quality of a father's play was related to adolescent social competence, the mother's role was more influential in emotional development. This highlights the complementary roles of mothers and fathers, with fathers typically engaging in stimulating, play-based interactions that encourage exploration and risk-taking. Despite these findings, research has produced mixed results. Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that by 18 months, 75% of infants were attached to their fathers, but only 3% had the father as their primary attachment figure. Additionally, MacCallum and Golombok (2004) found that children raised in single-mother or same-sex female households did not experience developmental disadvantages, suggesting that fathers are not essential for secure attachment or healthy development. These findings challenge traditional assumptions about the father's indispensable role. The research has important implications for societal views on parenting. Policies such as shared parental leave reflect growing recognition of fathers' ability to nurture and bond with their children. However, much of the research is culturally biased, as caregiving roles differ globally. For example, in collectivist cultures, caregiving responsibilities are often shared among extended family members, making the Western focus on fathers less applicable. Moreover, studies like Geiger (1996) emphasise the unique qualities of father-child interactions, such as promoting independence through play, rather than adopting a direct comparison with maternal caregiving. While fathers' contributions to attachment are significant, overemphasis on their role risks stigmatising families without fathers, such as single-mother households or same-sex families. Ultimately, research suggests that the quality of caregiving, rather than the caregiver's gender, is the key determinant of secure attachment. **Animal Studies of Attachment: Lorenz and Harlow** Animal studies have provided significant insights into attachment, focusing on the innate and learned aspects of bond formation. Lorenz (1935) and Harlow (1958) conducted seminal research, each addressing different aspects of attachment. Lorenz explored **imprinting**, while Harlow investigated the importance of **comfort** over feeding. Lorenz demonstrated that goslings imprint on the first moving object they see after hatching, a behaviour that occurs during a **critical period**. In his study, Lorenz divided a clutch of goose eggs, with half hatching naturally and following their mother, while the incubator-hatched group imprinted on Lorenz himself. Imprinting was found to be irreversible and had long-term effects, including **sexual imprinting**, as the goslings displayed courtship behaviours toward humans. Lorenz concluded that imprinting is an innate behaviour that promotes survival by ensuring proximity to a caregiver. Harlow's research used rhesus monkeys to challenge the learning theory of attachment, which emphasised feeding. Baby monkeys were presented with two surrogate mothers: a wire mother that provided food and a cloth mother that offered comfort. Harlow found that the monkeys spent more time with the cloth mother, seeking her comfort when frightened. This demonstrated that emotional security is more important than feeding in forming attachments. However, monkeys raised in isolation without a real mother exhibited severe social and emotional deficits, such as aggression and neglect of their offspring. These findings have been supported by studies like Guiton (1966), who found that chicks imprinted on yellow gloves used for feeding, confirming the critical period for imprinting. However, criticisms arise from the **generalisability** of animal research to humans. For example, while Harlow's findings are more applicable due to the similarities between primates and humans, Lorenz's geese exhibit attachment behaviours that differ significantly from human infants. Both studies have practical applications, particularly in childcare and adoption policies. Harlow's findings underscore the importance of comfort and emotional security in caregiving, influencing practices in nurseries and foster care. However, ethical concerns surrounding the severe distress inflicted on Harlow's monkeys raise questions about the cost-benefit balance of such research. Despite their limitations, these studies highlight the evolutionary basis of attachment, supporting Bowlby's theories of innate attachment mechanisms. **Explanations of Attachment: Learning Theory** The **learning theory of attachment** proposes that infants form attachments through conditioning, driven primarily by feeding. Often referred to as the **"cupboard love theory,"** it emphasises the caregiver's role in providing food as the foundation of the bond. Classical conditioning explains attachment as a learned association, where the caregiver (neutral stimulus) becomes linked with the pleasure derived from food (unconditioned stimulus). Over time, the caregiver becomes a conditioned stimulus, eliciting pleasure and comfort even in the absence of food. Operant conditioning further reinforces this behaviour, as crying results in the infant being fed, reducing discomfort (negative reinforcement), while the caregiver experiences relief from the cessation of crying (positive reinforcement). Dollard and Miller (1950) extended this framework with **drive-reduction theory**, suggesting that hunger is a primary drive, and attachment is a secondary drive learned through the satisfaction of the primary one. Although the theory provides a straightforward, testable explanation, it is limited in its scope. Harlow's (1958) research demonstrated that monkeys preferred a comforting surrogate mother over a wire mother that provided food, undermining the idea that feeding is the primary basis for attachment. Similarly, Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that 39% of infants formed their strongest attachments to someone other than the person who fed them, highlighting the role of emotional responsiveness over food provision. Critics argue that the learning theory is overly reductionist, reducing complex emotional bonds to stimulus-response mechanisms. It neglects factors such as **interactional synchrony** and **reciprocity**, which are crucial for attachment formation. Moreover, Bowlby's monotropic theory offers a more comprehensive explanation, integrating evolutionary principles and the concept of an internal working model. Despite its limitations, the learning theory laid the groundwork for later research by providing an initial behavioural framework for understanding attachment. **Explanations of Attachment: Bowlby's Monotropic Theory** Bowlby's monotropic theory is an evolutionary explanation of attachment, arguing that attachment behaviours are biologically pre-programmed to enhance the survival of the infant. Drawing on ethological studies and psychoanalytic concepts, Bowlby proposed that attachment ensures proximity to a caregiver, offering protection from predators and increasing the likelihood of survival. Unlike the behaviourist learning theory, which emphasises food as the basis for attachment, Bowlby focused on emotional bonds and caregiving responsiveness. Central to Bowlby's theory is the concept of **monotropy**, which suggests that infants form a primary attachment to one special figure, typically the mother. This bond is qualitatively different from secondary attachments, which serve a supportive role. Bowlby argued that this primary attachment is crucial for the infant's development and is formed during a **critical period**---up to 2.5 years, with sensitivity peaking around 6 months. Failure to form an attachment during this time leads to irreversible developmental consequences, such as difficulties in emotional regulation and social relationships. Another key feature is the **internal working model (IWM)**, a cognitive framework formed through interactions with the primary caregiver. The IWM shapes expectations about future relationships, with secure attachments fostering trust and positive relationships, while insecure attachments can lead to mistrust and emotional difficulties. Bowlby also introduced the **continuity hypothesis**, which posits that the quality of the primary attachment influences later social and emotional development. Additionally, he identified **social releasers**, such as crying and smiling, as innate infant behaviours designed to elicit caregiving responses. The theory has significant empirical support. Lorenz (1935) demonstrated that imprinting in geese occurs within a critical period, highlighting the biological basis of attachment. Similarly, Harlow (1958) showed that emotional comfort, rather than food, is central to attachment formation, aligning with Bowlby's focus on caregiving responsiveness. Tronick et al.'s studies of the Efe tribe further support monotropy, as infants in communal caregiving settings still formed a primary attachment. However, Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that 30% of infants formed multiple attachments simultaneously, challenging the universality of monotropy. Furthermore, Rutter et al.'s research on Romanian orphans suggests that the critical period is better understood as a sensitive period, as recovery from early deprivation was possible with later interventions. While Bowlby's theory has been highly influential, it is not without criticism. Critics argue that it is **reductionist**, as it focuses narrowly on the mother-infant dyad and ignores the role of fathers and other attachment figures. Additionally, the theory has been accused of **determinism**, implying that poor early attachment irrevocably determines future relationships, which is contradicted by evidence of resilience and recovery. The theory's emphasis on maternal care has also raised **ethical concerns**, as it risks stigmatising working mothers and single-parent families. However, the theory's integration of biological, emotional, and cognitive perspectives provides a comprehensive understanding of attachment, making it one of the most significant contributions to developmental psychology. **Ainsworth's Strange Situation and Types of Attachment** Ainsworth's Strange Situation (1978) is a controlled observational method designed to assess the quality of attachment between infants and their primary attachment figure (PAF). The study aimed to identify different types of attachment by observing how infants respond to separation and reunion with their caregiver, as well as their interactions with a stranger. The method involves eight scripted episodes lasting approximately three minutes each, which gradually increase stress levels for the infant by introducing separation and the presence of a stranger. The key behaviours assessed are **exploration and secure-base behaviour**, **separation anxiety**, **stranger anxiety**, and **reunion behaviour**. Ainsworth identified three main attachment types. **Secure attachment (Type B)**, observed in 66% of infants, is characterised by the use of the caregiver as a secure base for exploration, moderate distress upon separation, and joyful reunion behaviour, with the infant easily comforted. **Insecure-avoidant attachment (Type A)**, observed in 22% of infants, involves little distress during separation, avoidance of the caregiver upon reunion, and low stranger anxiety. **Insecure-resistant attachment (Type C)**, observed in 12% of infants, is marked by clinginess, high distress upon separation, and difficulty being comforted during reunion, with the infant displaying ambivalence. Later research by Main and Solomon (1986) added a fourth type, **disorganised attachment**, characterised by contradictory and confused behaviours, often linked to neglect or trauma. The Strange Situation has high **reliability**, with Bick et al. (2012) reporting 94% agreement among observers in categorising attachment types. Additionally, longitudinal studies, such as Sroufe et al. (2005), have shown that secure attachment in infancy predicts better social and emotional outcomes in later life, supporting the predictive validity of the Strange Situation. However, the method has been criticised for its **cultural bias**. Takahashi (1986) found that Japanese infants showed disproportionately high rates of insecure-resistant attachment due to cultural practices that emphasise close maternal proximity, suggesting that the method imposes Western norms of attachment. Ethical concerns have also been raised, as the procedure deliberately induces distre

Attachment Study PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue