Developmental PsychologyWeek 2: From conception to infancy

Part 2: Attachment

Module leader:Dr. Antonia Svensson-Dianellou

E-mail: svensson@ist.edu.gr

Slides by Dr Liz Kirk (UH)

• Which statement do you agree with?–Early social experience predestines a

child’s future.–The effects of early life experience

represent no more than an initial step in an ongoing life path.

2

attachment

• How important is the child’s first relationship?• How do we measure the security of

attachment between mothers and infants, and can we measure this in the same way for all children?

• Can security of attachment influence the child’s future relationships with other people, even with their own children?

• If so, can this cycle be broken?

3

attachment

– Definition– Perspectives–Measurement– Long-term benefits– Differences– Privation– Evaluation

4

attachment

• Lasting emotional tie between people such that the individual strives to maintain closeness to the object of attachment and acts to ensure the relationship continues.

• Individual experiences pleasure and security in presence of other but anxiety and distress when they are gone.

• Emphasis not only on the physical presence but the “psychological availability” (Sroufe & Waters, 1977)

5

Perspectives on attachment

• Psychodynamic• Psychobiological• Learning Theory• Ethological• Bowlby

6

Psychodynamic Theory

• Freud: ‘love has its origin in attachment to the satisfied need for nourishment’

• Humans motivated by biological drives – states of arousal that urge us to obtain basic prerequisites for survival. Attachment caused by reduction of hunger drive.

• Relationship to mother central to formation of child’s personality and is a prototype for all future relationships.

7

Psychobiological Theory • Psychological and biological processes merge within the mother-infant

interaction. Both infants’ behaviour and physiology are regulated by the caregiver (Hofer, 1978).

• Certain components of the mother-infant interaction regulate the infants’ behaviour and physiological systems. Loss of these regulators in maternal separation can produce behavioural and physiological changes in infants leading to patterns of change known as protest and despair.

Evidence• Hertsgaard et al (1995) longitudinal study 2m – 18 years children exposed

to severe caretaking problems during infancy frequently exhibited:– unusually low base cortisol levels with high spikes - associated with

later antisocial behaviour – or chronically high cortisol levels that were associated with later

anxiety

8

Learning Theory• Classical Conditioning– Food (unconditioned stimulus) produces sense of pleasure

(unconditioned response). Food becomes associated with the person doing the feeding, who then becomes a conditioned stimulus also producing a sense of pleasure.

• Operant Conditioning– Hungry infant feels uncomfortable, creates drive to lessen

discomfort. Drive reduction (feeding) is rewarding and infant learns food is a reward or primary enforcer. The person who supplies the food is associated with the food and becomes a secondary (or conditioned) re-enforcer and a reward.

• Social Learning Theory– Attachment occurs because children learn to imitate the

affectionate behaviour shown by their parents and parents teach children how to be affectionate.

9

Ethological Theory• Ethology = study of animal

behaviour focusing on importance of innate capacities.

• Imprinting: Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989) tendency of newborn to follow first moving objects they see.

• Behaviour involves the formation of an attachment between infant and mother.

• Adaptive behaviour as promotes survival as leads to proximity between infant and mother

10

Harlow

• Series experiments 1950s and 1960s• Separated baby monkeys from real mothers• Offered them two surrogate “mothers”–Wire mother providing food– Soft cloth mother, no nutrition

11

Baby monkeys fed from the wire mother but cuddled up to the soft cloth mothers and ran to her when scared

Attachment was not due to satisfaction of ‘primary’ needs (feeding)

Contact Comfort satisfied a primary need

12

Bowlby

• Bowlby’s (1950s) theories, humans have an innate ability to bond with another early on in life.

• Attachment as an innate primary drive (rather than a secondary drive as a by-product of association of mother with providing for physiological needs)

• Evolutionary perspective: attachment behaviours evolved to keep young infants safe from harm.

• Attachment provides a secure base from which the infant explores its environment.

• Bowlby (1969) identified following key phases in development of attachment:

13

Phase 1: Pre-attachment Indiscriminate social responsiveness (Birth – 2 months)

• Infants behave in characteristic and friendly ways towards other people, limited discrimination between people.

• Equally friendly to inanimate objects.

14

Phase 2: Attachment-in-the-making Recognition of familiar people(2 – 6/7 months)

• Continue to be generally social but beginning to be marked difference of behaviour towards one primary care giver.

• Relatively easily comforted by anyone, do not yet show anxiety with strangers.

15

Phase 3: Specific AttachmentsSeparation protest and stranger anxiety(7 months – 2 years)

• Infants show attachment to one person by protesting when that person puts them down and showing joy at reunion.

• Stranger anxiety• Mobile – infant will follow caregiver and use

this person as base for safe exploration

16

Phase 4: Multiple attachments(8 months)

• Very soon after main attachment forms, infant develops wider circle of attachments depending on how many consistent relationships he or she has.

17

Phase 5: Formation of a goal-corrected partnership(age 2 +)

• Once attachment relationships appear they undergo further change, which takes place largely in tandem with cognitive developments;– behave intentionally– plan actions in light of goals – take account of feelings and goals of other person.– Infant can consciously influence what the caregiver

does

18

Internal working models• As children become capable of representing the world

to themselves in symbolic form, they form models of themselves, of significant others and of the relationship they have with others.

• Enable the child to anticipate the other person’s behaviour and guide behaviour.

• Built upon basis of experience with particular attachment figures and reflect the quality of the relationship with that figure.

• IWM is ‘Cognitive prototype’ that is imposed onto new interactions, affecting the child’s expectations of, and responses to others.

19

Measuring the security of attachments

• Mary Ainsworth• Studied attachment in Uganda and North

America. Observed variation in attachment behaviour.

• All infants attached to their parents but differ in the sense of security they feel in relation to the adult

• Investigated individual differences in attachment, developed effective assessment

20

Strange Situation

• Ainsworth and Wittig (1969)–Measured the organisation of attachment

behaviours– Used a standardised laboratory situation– Identified individual differences– Potential for forecasting future development

21

Strange Situation• Takes place in lab with a set arrangement of toys and

furniture. Infants are mobile, 12-18m.

– Mother and child are introduced into the room– They are left alone, child can play (up to 3 minutes)– A stranger enters and stays (3 minutes)– Mother leaves, stranger interacts with child (up to 3 minutes)– Mother returns to greet and comfort child, stranger leaves (3 minutes)– Child left alone then the stranger returns.– The stranger tries to engage the child (up to 3 minutes)– The mother returns and stranger leaves (3 minutes)

22

Strange Situation

• Detailed coding scheme: – proximity/frequency to mother and stranger,– approach/avoidance behaviours– assessment of separation/reunion.

23

Classification

• Based on ‘Strange Situation’ behaviours child is classified according to security of attachment:– A = Insecure/avoidant– B = Secure– C = Insecure/anxious ambivalent– Later Main & Solomon (1989) added• D = Disorganised

24

25

A: Insecure (or anxious) Avoidant

A: Insecure (or anxious) Avoidant

Do not seek proximity to mother Avoid contact during reunion Do not react differently to stranger May even prefer stranger to mother Possible parenting characteristics (emphasis on maternal

sensitivity): child used to being independent/on their own, not always responded to and therefore unlikely to seek help, implications for postnatal depression (see later slide)

Cortisol studies (Spangler & Grossman, 1993)

26

B: SecureB: Secure At ease with stranger and mother Prefer mother to stranger May cry in mother’s absence and seek proximity to her

on return. Settle down happily after reunion. Possible parenting characteristics (in terms of maternal

sensitivity): a synchronised attentive relationship, security to explore/be with stranger but impulse to gain comfort from mum when upset.

27

C: Insecure (or anxious) Ambivalent

C: Insecure (or anxious) Ambivalent

Positive and negative reactions to mother Seek excessive contact when present Very upset during separation Contact avoided on reunion: rejection and possibly anger. Possible parenting characteristics (as related to maternal

sensitivity): inconsistency in attention given, creates feelings of anger and resentment, want attention but reject it at the same time.

28

D. DisorganisedD. Disorganised

Inconsistent behaviour Confusion Indecision Tend to freeze/show stereotyped behaviour/rocking etc. Possible parenting characteristics (as related to maternal

sensitivity): sometimes result of the abuse, the person you would naturally seek comfort from may frighten you or have displayed frightened behaviour/not provided protection.

Long-term benefits

• Securely attached infants– More sociable with peers (e.g. Arend et al.1979)– Better problem solvers, more persistent and

enthusiastic, more socially competent, fewer behavioural problems (e.g. Bates et al, 1985).

– Better understanding of how people’s beliefs and preferences affect their emotional reactions (Meins et al 1998)

– More likely to remember positive emotional events that they witnessed in puppet show (insecure remembered negative events) Belsky et al 1996

29

What causes differences in attachment?

a. Parental behaviourb. Child characteristicsc. Family influencesd. Cultural differences

30

a. Parental Behaviour

• Maternal sensitivity–Mary Ainsworth

Post-natal depression– Teti et al. (1995) 80 % of infants of depressed

mothers were classified as insecure (with 40 percent insecure-disorganized), compared to only 30 percent (10 percent insecure-disorganized) in the non-depressed group.

31

32

The ‘sensitivity’ hypothesis: Emphasis on caregiver

• Insecure attachments related to sensitivity of mother (Belsky et al., 1984).

• Sensitivity is the ability to perceive and interpret children’s attachment signals and to respond to them quickly and appropriately (Ainsworth 1978)

– Ainsworth suggested a causal link between parental sensitivity and attachment security.

– Shaped by parents’ own childhood attachment experiences

– Adult Attachment Interview (George et al., 1985) led to many confirmatory studies.

Adult Attachment Interviews• Semi-structured interviews, adults asked to describe childhood

relationships with parents and recall times when separated from them

• Autonomous - coherent, well-balanced account, clear value of close relationships

• Dismissing - deny importance of attachment experiences, insist cannot recall childhood events and emotions

• Preoccupied - over involved issues relating to early attachment experiences

• Unresolved - not been able to resolve feelings relating to death of loved one or to abuse may have suffered

33

Adult Attachment Interviews• Intergenerational Transfer The way in which a parent represents

his/her childhood attachment experiences is related to types relationship formed with his\her own child.

• Autonomous parents (mothers and fathers) more likely to have infants who are securely attached (e.g. Steele, Steele & Fonagy, 1996).

• Dismissing = insecure-avoidant• Pre-occupied = insecure resistant• Unresolved = insecure-disorganised

Caregivers enable their children to develop good emotional coping strategies by virtue of their willingness to acknowledge and respond to their infants’ emotional expressions (Cassidy, 1994).

34

35

Evaluation of Sensitivity• Meta-analysis of 66 studies found it to be an important predictor of

attachment security (De Wolff & Van Ijzendoorn, 1997).

• Maternal sensitivity not a stable trait. If changes from one age to another is hardly likely to provide a satisfactory explanation for attachment security (Isabelle, 1993)

• Several studies support and fail to support sensitivity and secure attachment link depending on time of assessment (Belsky et al 1984).

• Sensitivity is statement about interaction, hence meaningless without reference to both partners. Study of infant antecedents equally important.

Mind-MindednessLiz Meins• Evolved from the original definition of maternal

sensitivity (Ainsworth, 1971)

• Higher levels of mind-mindedness in the child’s first year of life predict:– infant-mother attachment security (better than

maternal sensitivity) (Meins,1998;2001)– infant-father attachment security (Arnott &

Meins, 2007; Lundy, 2003)– children's later understanding of others’ mental

states, i.e. theory of mind. (Meins et al, 2003).

36

b. Child Characteristics

• The ‘temperament’ hypothesisTemperament refers to the basic disposition of a person

Schaffer (1996) would argue that it is unthinkable that temperament would have no effect on situations.

Kagan (1984) proposed that the child’s temperament plays a role in the attachment relationship.– E.g., temperamental vulnerability to become anxious– Strange situation IS stressful, more so to some than others.

37

Temperament

• Thomas and Chess categorized infants into 3 temperament types:– Easy children are mostly happy, relaxed and agreeable (40

%)– Difficult children are moody, easily frustrated, over-

reactive (10 %)– Slow-to-warm-up children are somewhat shy and

withdrawn, take time to adjust (15 %)

38

The ‘temperament’ hypothesis

• EVIDENCE

• Children who at 3m were less sociable and preferred to play with toys than people more likely to be insecure-avoidant at 12m (Lewis & Feiring, 1989)

• Mothers with ‘fussy’ babies may respond to them less: Inborn inability to regulate distress and a heightened feeling of anxiety = Negative cycle

• Link between resistant attachment and neonatal irritability found by some (Goldsmith & Alansky, 1987) but not others (van den Boom, 1994).

39

40

Evaluation of Temperament

• Mixed findings and therefore a causal relation is still unclear.

• In relation to the Strange Situation, parental report measurements and attachment type have either proved non-significant (Thompson, 1998) or moderate in terms of a link to neonatal irritability (Goldsmith & Alansky, 1987).

• It may determine how security/insecurity is expressed but not the exact type (Belsky & Rovine, 1987)

• Problems with different indices of temperament.

c. Family influences

• Low socio-economic status (Shaw & Vondra, 1993)

• Marital discord (Belsky & Isabella, 1988)

Why? Difficult family situations:Lowers parental sensitivityAdults not reliable sources of comfort and

safety

41

d. Cultural Differences

42

What do these cultural differences tell us?

• Are certain nationalities predisposed to be more likely to form insecure attachment relationships?

Or• Do cultural differences in parenting practices

mean that test is culturally biased?

43

Japanese Mother-Infant Attachment

• SS too stressful for Japanese Infants– Rarely separated from their mothers (Miyake et al.

1985)– Mothers sleep with infants and have constant bodily

contact carrying babies in slings• SS not appropriate/accurate measure as

procedure too far removed from infants’ everyday experiences care giving

• Japanese career women: Infants show typical American distribution of attachment patterns

44

German mother-infant interaction

• German mothers traditional enforcement of independence towards end of first year = heightened number insecure avoidant infants (Grossman et al 1985)

• German mothers who do not impose care giving traditions no more likely have insecure-avoidant attachment

45

Israeli Mother-Infant Interactions

• High rate of insecure-attachment (Sagi et al 1985)

• Study based on infants raised in Kibbutz: communally raised.

• Stresses of repeated encounters with a stranger probably too challenging.

46

What do these cultural differences tell us?

• Are certain nationalities predisposed to be more likely to form insecure attachment relationships?

• Do cultural differences in parenting practices mean that test is culturally biased?

• SS as an appropriate measure of the bond between mothers and babies everywhere?

47

What causes differences in attachment?

a. Parental behaviourb. Child characteristicsc. Family influencesd. Cultural differences

48

Privation

• Bowlby–Maternal deprivation: separation/loss of mother

also failure to develop attachment

• Rutter: Further distinction– Privation: never been able to form any

attachments.– Deprivation: loss or damage to an attachment.

49

Short-term effects of deprivation

• Robertson & Bowlby (1952) The protest-despair-detachment model.

• Observations young children separated from mothers due to hospitalisation.

• 3 stage response– Protest (Crying).– Despair (apathetic, no longer looking for caregiver,

self-comforting).– Detachment (if situation continues weeks or months,

child unresponsive, may ignore caregiver on return).

50

Long-term effects of deprivation

• Bowlby (1944) Fourty-four juvenile thieves• 86% delinquent children had, before age of 2,

been in foster homes or hospitals, often not visited by families. Cause and effect?

• Rutter et al (1976) • 2,000 boys, aged 9-12. Four times more likely

to become delinquent if separation related to family discord rather than through illness or death of their mother.

51

52

The effects of early privation

• Rutter (1998) looked at 111 Romanian adoptees– Adopted in the UK before 2 years old– Follow up was at 4 years old– Compared with a UK sample adopted before 6 months old.– Romanian children adopted before 6m.old had caught up

developmentally by age 4.– Those placed after 6m.old showed improvements but had not caught up.

• Gross early privation (psychological rather than nutritional) resulted in cognitive deficits at age 4 if it went on longer than the first 6 months of the child’s life.

53

Privation• Clarke & Clarke (1998): examination of the evidence relating towhether early social experience predestines the child’s future

• Like Rutter, Clarke concludes that the outlook for childrenwho have had negative experiences need not be totally bleakand the care they receive subsequently plays a crucial role.

• If children can leave a negative family environment differentsocialization experiences may override earlier social learning.

• Importance of person factors: resilience etc.“The evidence is clear: while there is a range of outcomes, early

social experience by itself does not predestine the future.”

Risk factors and interventions

• Prematurity• Greater risk of insecure attachment for high risk

(<1500 grams, < 30 weeks) premature infants (Plunkett et al. 1996)

• Plunkett believes that the separation can lead to anxiety/depression in mothers and combined with a difficult to soothe child may influence attachment type.

• Cochrane review (2007). Trend early skin-to-skin contact improves attachment outcomes in premature babies.

54

Evaluation of Strange Situation

• Do infants who test as insecure really feel insecure or is it something about the testing situation that makes them act insecure in that situation and not elsewhere?

• Evidence Against:– Cultural differences– Infants who spend time in childcare• No differences in attachment (Clarke-Stewart et al.

1994). If SS valid then infants used to daily separations.

55

Evaluation of Strange Situation

• Evidence for: Stability

– Link between attachment security and cognitive development (Cassidy, 1986).

– Classifications reliable and stable over time (Waters, 1978; Main & Cassidy, 1988).

– Stability from 1 to 6 years also shown by Wartner et al. 1994, found 78% of children’s classifications at 1 year still held at 6 yrs.• When changes do occur they are often due to changes in the type of care

the children experience/changing life circumstances so could improve or regress.

56

57

Evaluation cont…

Should we equate stability with reliability when talking about development?

Outside events may effect the nature of the relationship.

Only a modest similarity of attachments to mother and father (Van Ijzendoorn & De Wolff, 1997)

Indeed can have qualitatively different attachments with different parents (Cox et al. 1992)

58

Summary

• The Strange Situation and to a lesser extent AAI’s have provided an objective methodology for classifying and studying infant/caregiver relationships.

• Support has been found for both the sensitivity and temperament hypotheses although debate still rages.

• However type of attachment as an infant need not determine a whole life as good subsequent care after early deprivation can improve prospects considerably (see Clarke, 1998)

Questions to consider…

• What evidence is there that attachment patterns are transmitted from one generation to another? Does this seem plausible, if so, can the cycle be broken?

• Which statement do you agree with:– Early social experience predestines a child’s future.– The effects of early life experience represent no

more than an initial step in an ongoing life path.59

Recommended reading

Core textbooks:•Chapter 4, Smith et al. or•Chapter 6, Slater & Bremner

And at least one article

60

61

Further reading• The development of attachment relationships: Infancy and Beyond, in

Exploring Developmental Psychology, 1999 • Chapter 11 in Blackwell Handbook of Infant Development (2004), can be

accessed as an E-book through Voyager• Clarke, A. (1998), Early Experience and the Life Path, The Psychologist

(September issue), pp. 443 - 436. [On StudyNet]• Read and Gumley (2008). Can attachment theory help explain the

relationship between childhood adversity and psychosis? New Directions in Psychotherapy and Relational Psychoanalysis vol. 2, pp1-35.

• Rutter, M. & the English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) Study Team (1998) Developmental catch-up and deficit, following adoption after severe global early privation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 465-476