Unit 1: attachmentA two-way, enduring, emotional bond between two individuals, in which the following behaviours are displayed. 1. Seeking proximity, especially at times of stress. 2. Distress on separation and pleasure when reunited 3. Secure base behaviour-so infants are happy to explore but regularly return to attachment figure.

What the specification says you have to know:

Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: reciprocity and interactional synchrony. Stages of attachment identified by Schaffer. Multiple attachments and the role of the father. Animal studies of attachment: Lorenz and Harlow. Explanations of attachment: learning theory and Bowlby’s monotropic theory. The

concepts of a critical period and an internal working model. Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’. Types of attachment: secure, insecure-avoidant and

insecure-resistant. Cultural variations in attachment, including van Ijzendoorn. Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation. Romanian orphan studies: effects of institutionalisation. The influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships, including the

role of an internal working model.

1

Exam tip!The AQA acknowledge that the textbooks tend to offer slightly different definitions and that the two concepts do overlap. They say that candidates do need to be aware that the concepts overlap but that they should also be able to define the terms separately and mention Condon and Sander as a good example. So how exactly do they overlap? The concepts in this area are describing the metaphorical dance between infant and caregiver. It looks, feels and acts like a conversation between infant and caregiver. Though no words may be uttered (not on the baby’s part anyway) this two-way interaction has two active contributors (carer and baby). The interactions will be rhythmic and mutual; infant and caregiver are likely to appear to be in harmony as they take turns in this attachment promoting conversation which is likely to involve the infant and caregiver responding to each other with similar sounds, emotions and behaviours. Infant and caregiver are able to anticipate how each other will behave and can elicit a particular response from the other.

Caregiver-infant interactions in humans

ReciprocityThe word reciprocal means two-way, or something that is mutual. Infant and caregiver are both active contributors in the interaction and are responding to each other. This is referred to as reciprocity.

Traditional views of childhood believed that a baby took a passive role, simply receiving care from an adult however research shows us that a baby is very active and that mother child interactions are like a “dance” Brazelton et al (1975). Mother and child take turn to initiate interactions and from birth babies and carers spend a lot of time in intense and pleasurable interaction. Babies have alert periods that mothers pick up on and respond to, although only about two thirds of the time (Feldman and Eidelman 2007). From three months the reciprocal element kicks in as interaction becomes increasingly frequent and involves the carer and child playing close attention to each other’s verbal signals and facial expressions.

Interactional synchrony The word synchrony means a simultaneous action or occurrence. Interactional synchrony relates to the timing and pattern of the interaction. The interaction is rhythmic and can include infant and caregiver mirroring each other’s behaviour and emotion. The infant and caregiver’s behaviours are synchronised because they are moving in the same, or a similar, pattern.

Condon and Sander (1974) have investigated interactions between infants and caregivers in particular in relation to responses to adult speech. In their paper they report “As early as the first day of life, the human neonate moves in precise and sustained segments of movement that are synchronous with the articulated structure of adult speech”. According to research by Meltzoff and Moore (1983) infants as young as 3 days

imitate the facial expression of adults. This implies that this ability to mirror is an innate behaviour.

What does this overlap look like? The caregiver who smiles at their baby in response to a smile-like facial movement from the infant or who opens their mouth in mock surprise when the infant scrunches up their face, is engaged in this two-way pattern of interaction and is laying the foundations for an attachment to form. The infant that cries and elicits a sad expression and look of upset on their caregivers face or the caregiver who laughs in response to their infants giggling sound and tickles them, is experiencing synchronised interaction.

2

Evaluation of caregiver-infant interactions

Supporting evidence

Both of these pieces of research show support for the concepts of reciprocity and interactional synchronicity.

Meltzoff and Moore (1977) used 4 different stimuli; adults displayed one of three facial expressions and a hand gesture and the child’s response was filmed and identified by independent observers who had no knowledge of what the children had just seen. The behavioural catergories were mouth opening, termination of mouth opening, tongue protrusion, termination of tongue protrusion. Each observer scored the tapes twice so that inter-observer reliability could be calculated. All scores were greater than .92. An association was found between the expression or gesture the adult has displayed and the babies actions.

Isabella et al (1989) observed 30 mothers and infants together and looked at synchrony and quality of attachment and found an association between high levels of synchrony and better quality attachments.

This research supports because Meltzoff showed the existence of reciprocity consistently between mother and child. Also Isabella found differences in the degree of reciprocity and intentional synchrony shown i.e. infants displaying more synchronicity were more strongly attached which shows us not just about the concepts existence but also about the purpose and importance of reciprocity and interactional synchrony.

Other evaluationResearch methods-observations

Observations of mother-infant interactions (such as above) are generally well controlled procedures, with both mother and child being filmed, often from multiple angles. This ensures very fine details of behaviour can be recorded and later analysed and improves the validity of the research and the use of independent observers improves the reliabilty of the research.

Research methods-observations

Infants don’t know or care that they are being observed so their behaviour doesn’t change in a controlled observation which is generally a problem for observational research. This is a strength as means the research has good validity. However the behaviour of the mother may be subject to demand characteristics.

Not universal - Interactional synchrony is not found in all cultures which weakens the support for the idea that it is important in the development of attachments. Le vine (1994) reported that Kenyan mothers have little physical contact or interactions with their children but have high proportions of secure attachments.

Practical applications Meltzoff and Moore (1983) demonstrated intentional synchrony with three day old babies. Which suggest that babies should be placed next to their mothers in hospital and should continue to remain in close contact for at least the first three months to improve the quality of attachment.

Practical applications Music therapists and other therapists who work with parents and infants/children who have experienced disruption in their attachment formation (e.g. when children are adopted and attachments with foster carers need to be transferred to adoptive parents) recognise the importance of reciprocity and interactional synchrony in their therapeutic work. For example, caregivers are encouraged to mirror and share their child’s emotion by imitating facial expressions and engaging in reciprocal behaviour in response to

3

music or other stimuli.

Stages of attachment identified by Schaffer

The 4 stages outlined by Schaffer and Emerson are outlined below:

Stage Age DescriptionPre-attachment

Birth-3 months Babies start to smile and become more “sociable” and from around 6 weeks. They can tell people apart and like to be in human company so begin to form stronger attachments however these do not progress much until the next stage as can be easily comforted by any individual. At this stage, Schaffer and Emerson found that they did not show a fear of strangers.

Indiscriminate attachment

3 months to 7/8 months

Infants are recognising and forming bonds with their carers through reciprocity and interactional synchrony however their behaviour towards animate (faces) or inanimate objects (teddies) is quite similar. Towards the end of the phase they start to be more content when in the presence of other people and can be more easily calmed by familiar adults but will allow strangers to handle and look after them.

Discriminate attachment

Usually 7/8 months onward

The key things about this stage are that the infant begins to show separation anxiety and “protests”, usually by crying, when their primary attachment figure leaves (the biological mother in 75% of cases) They are said to now have formed a specific attachment. The second key behaviour is that they begin to show fear of strangers.

Multiple Attachments

9 months onwards Shortly after infants show specific attachments they begin to make multiple attachments (29% within a month according to Schaffer’s study). This is usually towards friends, grandparents and child-minders/ nursery staff.

4

Evaluation of stages of attachment

Supporting evidenceResearch by Schaffer and Emerson supports the stages of attachment

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) aimed to investigate the formation of early attachments, when they started, their intensity and to whom they were directed.Method- A longitudinal study using 60 babies (31 male, 21 female) from Glasgow the majority from skilled working class backgrounds. They were visited at home every month for the first year and then at 18 months. Mothers were interviewed to measure the infants level of attachment asking questions about how their infants responded to seven situations e.g. adult leaving the room (separation anxiety) and observations were conducted to investigate the level of distress the presence of a stranger caused (stranger anxiety).Findings- Timings-Specific attachment (signs of separation anxiety) 50% of infants by 7 months, 80% by 40 weeks and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments. By one year 78% had developed multiple attachments with 33% having five or more multiple attachment figures.

The findings of this study were used to create Schaffer’s stages and so we can say that the stages have longitudinal evidence supporting it.

Research methods evaluation-Longitudinal The study looks at the same group of infants over a much longer period of time than a lab experiment or observation and so it can look at the real development of attachment and is not just a snap shot like most other research.

Validity Schaffer’s study observed babies in their actual home environment and so the behaviour was unlikely to have been effected by the observers and so can be said to have external (ecological) validity.

Validity Schaffer and Emerson’s study is based on a limited sample of participants. Whilst 60 babies is an acceptable sample size, all the babies were from the same area and were the same social class so is low in population validity.

Generalisability In some cultures multiple caregivers are the norm so multiple attachments may develop immediately instead of specific attachments and as child rearing practices vary from culture to culture and over time these results do not necessarily generalise well.

Links and supports other concepts The stages link to reciprocity and interactional synchrony particularly at the indiscriminate stage and so further support the stages and the existence of these two concepts.

Stage theories are inflexible Stage theories are inflexible. If a child doesn’t fit into the particular stage at the “right” time then they may be judged as abnormal or parents might become worried if these stages are a standard by which families are judged.

5

The role of the father and multiple attachments.

The role of the father So how important is the role of fathers in a child’s development? Traditionally research looks at mother-child interactions and there is limited research into this area. The research that has been carried out focus on different areas and so it’s hard to come up with a definitive answer however research does suggested that the father plays a key role in the development of attachments.

Summary of the key findings

-Fathers play interactions are more exciting and pleasurable than mothers-Mothers are more nurturing and affectionate-Mothers are preferred when children are distressed and seeking comfort-Fathers are preferred when children are in a positive emotional state and want stimulation (Lamb 1987)-Fathers are less able than mothers to detect low levels of infant distress (Hrdy 1999)-However fathers that do become the main care provider do quickly develop more sensitivity to children’s needs and become a safe base for children to explore from suggesting that sensitive responsiveness is not necessarily a biological ability limited to women Lamb (1987). -Marital intimacy was linked to security of father-infant interactions. So the fathers with secure father-infant interactions had secure and intimate relationships with the child’s mother. (Belsky 2009)

Evaluation of the role of the father.

Research evidenceEvidence by Grossman (2002) has suggested that the father has a different, unique role in attachment-one that is more to do with play and stimulation and less to do with nurturing.

A longitudinal study was carried out looking at parents behaviour and its relationship to the quality of children’s attachment in their teens. It was the quality of the mother’s attachment and not the fathers that was related to attachment in their teens but the quality of fathers play with infants was related.

So this evidence shows that the father is still important in a child’s development and their role does impact on the quality of their attachments in their teenage years but through play and not nurturing and being the primary attachment figure.

There is evidence that contradicts the idea that fathers can play the same role as mothers successfully.

Field (1978) filmed 4 month old babies in face to face interactions with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiver fathers. They found that primary caregiver fathers like mothers spent more time smiling, imitating and holding infants than the secondary caregiver fathers and that this behaviour is important in the building of attachments.

This is suggesting the father is as capable as the mother of being a sensitive and caring primary caregiver if given the chance and that it is the level of responsiveness and not the gender of the parent that is the key to the attachment relationship.

6

Other evaluation

Contradictory findings Grossman suggests that fathers as secondary attachment figures have an important role to play in a child’s development however research by Golombok (2004) have found that children growing up in a single or same sex parent household do not develop any differently and so questions the importance of the role of the father in attachment.

Biology? Research suggests that a sensitive male carer is as capable of effective child rearing as a female but why do men not tend to take on this role? It is of course to do (in part) with traditional gender roles but it could be the fact that female hormones create higher levels of empathy which biological pre-dispose women to be the primary attachment figure.

Practical applications The research can be used to help develop the quality of attachments within the whole family as it shows that the parents relationships can impact on the father-child relationships. It can also be used to try to validate/increase the role that fathers play in families as it shows how important it is to a child’s development.

Multiple attachmentsSo what does the evidence show us then about multiple attachments?-29% of infants develop multiple attachments within a month of developing specific attachments (by 40 weeks)- By the age of one 78% of children have multiple attachments- By the age of one 33% of the 78% have 5 or more attachments (Schaffer)-Fathers are one of the key multiple attachments that children form and that this attachment is important for a child’s development.

Further evidence and ideas

Do all babies develop a single attachment to the main carer before they develop multiple attachments? Bowlby developed the idea of monotropy – babies have one key attachment figure. This figure is usually, but does not have to be, the mother. Secondary attachments then follow, such as to the father and siblings.

If babies do develop multiple attachments after a primary attachment to one person, are multiple attachments of equal strength to the primary attachment or not? Rutter (1995) saw all attachments as being equal – so there is no such thing as primary and secondary attachments. All a child’s attachments give the child an idea of how relationships work (an internal working model).

Is the picture clear on multiple attachments?In some cultures multiple caregivers are the norm so multiple attachments may develop immediately instead of specific attachments. For instance Sagi et al (1994) looked at children raised in a community

children’s home in kibbutzim where they slept away from their parents, and compared them to children with family based sleeping arrangements. Attachment to the mother was twice as strong in the family based arrangements.

7

Animal studies of attachment.

In the early 20th century a number of ethologists conducted animal studies looking at attachment in infant animals to inform their understanding of human mother-infant attachments.

Lorenz (1935)To investigate the mechanisms of imprinting, where bird species mobile from birth follow and form attachment to the first moving object they see.

Lorenz split a clutch of greylag goose eggs into two batches- one naturally hatched by the mother, one in an incubator with Lorenz as the first moving object they saw. He then recorded their behaviour.

He also marked the gooslings and placed them under an upturned box, then removed it and recorded their behaviour.

FindingsThe incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere whereas the control group followed their mother. When the two groups were mixed up the incubator group still continued to follow Lorenz and the control group the mother.

There was a critical period of between 4-25 hours (depending on species) and if imprinting did not occur the chicks did not attach to a mother figure.

Lorenz subsequently reported that the goslings imprinted on humans would later attempt to mate with humans.

Harlow (1959)

To determine whether food or close comfort was the important factor in attachment, Harlow placed 16 baby rhesus monkeys in cages with two surrogate mothers; a harsh wire mother or a soft towelling mother.4 of the 16 monkeys were used in each of the following four conditions--wire mother producing milk, towel mother no milk-wire mother no milk, towelling mother producing milk-wire mother producing milk-towelling mother producing milk

The amount of time spent with each mother was recorded as well as feeding time.The monkeys were frightened with a loud noise to test for mother preference during stress. A large cage was also used to test for degree of exploration.

FindingsMonkeys preferred contact with the towelling mother when given a choice of surrogate mothers, regardless of whether she produced milk; they even stretched across to the wire mother to feed whilst clinging to the towelling mother.

Monkeys with only the wire mother showed signs of stress as had diarrhoea.

When frightened by a loud noise, monkeys clung to the towelling mother in conditions where she was available.

8

In larger cage conditions monkeys with towelling mothers explored more and visiting their surrogate mothers more often.

Monkeys in adulthoodMonkeys in some of Harlow’s experiments were followed into adulthood and severe consequences were found- more aggressive, less sociable, bred less often as were unskilled at mating. As mothers some of the monkeys neglected their young and others attacked their children even killing them in some cases.

Evaluation of animal studies

Theoretical value Harlow’s findings have had a profound effect on psychologists understanding of mother-infant attachment. Most importantly Harlow showed that attachment does not develop as a result of being fed by a mother figure but s a result of contact comfort. He also showed us the importance of the quality of early relationships for later social development.

Difference in nature and complexity of the bond (taken from mark scheme)

It is argued that it is not appropriate to generalise Lorenz’s findings to humans as a mammal’s attachment system is quite different to that of birds. Mammals show more emotional attachment to their young and may be able to form attachments at any time, albeit less easily in infants so the bond in humans is much more complex.

Problems of extrapolation to attachment in human infants (taken form mark scheme)

Although Monkeys are more similar to humans than geese so making it slightly more easy to generalise, they are still not human and so it is argued that we can not necessarily generalise Harlow’s or Lorenz’s research to human attachments.

Ethical issues Harlow faced severe criticism for the ethics of his research. The species were considered similar enough to humans to be generalised to them and so the suffering they encountered was presumably very human like there were sever long term effects for all of the monkeys involved. Some argue the findings were important enough to justify the ethical issues though.

Imprinting not always permanent -

Lorenz work has been replicated and in some cases it was found that imprinting was not always permanent. Guiton (1966) found that when chickens were imprinted to a yellow rubber glove they did at first imprint on it but learned with experience to prefer mating with other chickens eventually so it suggests that the impact of imprinting on mating behaviour is not as permanent as Lorenz believed.

Practical applications Harlow’s research has helped social workers to understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse and so intervene to prevent it (Howe 1998). They have also been important in the care of captive monkeys and we now understand the importance of proper attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoo’s and breeding programmes.

9

Explanations of attachment: Learning theory and Bowlby’s monotropic theory.

Learning theory The Behavioural explanation proposes that all behaviour is learnt rather than inborn (innate). When children are born they are like blank slates and everything they become can be explained in terms of the experiences they have. Learning theory is put forward by behaviourist who focus solely on behaviour- what people do rather than what they might be thinking. Behaviourists suggest all behaviour and so attachment can be explained using the concepts of classical conditioning and operant conditioning.

Classical conditioningAccording to the classical conditioning part of learning theory attachment is formed partly due to learning through association. Use the diagram to help you to understand the concept explained below.Food (Unconditioned stimulus) naturally produces a sense of pleasure in a child (unconditioned response). The person who feeds the infant initially (neutral stimulus) provides no natural response but over time the “feeder” eventually produces the pleasure associated with the food; pleasure now becomes a conditioned response and the feeder the conditioned stimulus. This association between an individual and a sense of pleasure is the attachment bond.

unconditioned stimulus unconditioned response

Neutral stimulus No response

After enough pairings of the previous stage:

conditioned stimulus conditioned response

Operant conditioning

10

Dollard and Miller (1950). Operant conditioning is learning through reinforcement of behaviour. Crying is an automatic response to hunger. If an infant is fed each time she cries, she learns that crying results in food, which is rewarding, and so repeats this behaviour more often - this is positive reinforcement. The caregiver’s attention results in food, and so is also reinforcing. The primary reinforcer in this process is the food. The secondary reinforcer is the caregiver. The infant learns that crying will maintain the caregiver’s attention and food supply, so attachment behaviours such as separation distress are formed. The caregiver is also conditioned by the infant. The caregiver feeds the infant, who stops crying. Feeding is repeated to avoid the discomfort of hearing the infant cry. This is negative reinforcement for the caregiver.

Learning theory and drive reductionThe primary drive for the baby is hunger; babies are driven to have their hunger reduced. Attachment is a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of the primary drive. Hence learning theory predicts that babies want to be close to the caregiver who feeds them.

Evaluation of Learning theoryPlausible and scientific (from mark scheme) Plausible and scientific as founded in an established

scientific theory, i.e. likely that association between the provision of needs and the person providing those needs can lead to strong attachments; reinforcers are clearly shown.

Reductionist (from mark scheme) The focus on basic processes (stimulus -response links, reinforcement) is too simplistic to explain complex attachment behaviours.

Counter evidence Some animal studies have shown us that young animals do not necessarily attach to those who feed it. Lorenz’s geese imprinted before were fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them and Harlow’s monkey study showed the monkeys preferred the comfort monkey who gave no food.

Counter evidence Human research by Schaffer also shows that food is not the key factor in attachment as they found that more than half of infants were not attached to the

11

Key terms

Positive reinforcement-when the consequences of your actions are pleasant, so you repeat the behaviour to again get the positive reinforcer e.g. praise, money.Negative reinforcement- when you repeat a behaviour not because you are receiving a reward or something pleasant but are removing something unpleasant for example you take paracetamol to get rid of your headache which is unpleasant.Primary reinforcer-this is something which is automatically or directly reinforcing e.g. food, money, praise.Secondary reinforcer-this is something that is indirectly reinforcing so through classical conditioning has become associated with a primary reinforcer e.g. the mother giving a child food.

person who provided the primary care (i.e. fed them) but instead were still attached to their biological mother rather than this caregiver and so there is no unconditioned stimulus involved.

Ignores other factors It ignores reciprocity, interactional synchrony and other factors associated with forming attachments. Research (specifically Ainsworth) suggests that it is the sensitivity of the caregiver that is important and that the quality of the attachment is linked to developing reciprocity and interactional synchrony. If attachment was just purely about food then there would be no need for these complex interactions.You can compare with other explanations such a Bowlby to highlight flaws and weaknesses.

Explanations of attachment: Bowlby’s monotropic theory.

Based on the work of Lorenz and Harlow, Bowlby proposed an evolutionary explanation of attachment.

Attachment is an innate system that is biological programmed into babies from birth in order to help them to survive i.e Infants have an innate drive to survive.

Babies seek proximity to carer (mother) for safety as it protects them from hazards; millions of years ago wild animals; today, cars, ponds, electricity. So security and secure attachment equals survival.

Monotropy- Bowlby proposed that infants have one special emotional bond, normally the biological mother (but not always) and that this relationship was different and more important than any others. Bowlby believed the more time spent with the primary attachment figure the better.

Internal working model-The importance of monotropy is that, for a child, this special relationship forms a mental representation or a model for what relationships are like. It can therefore have a powerful effect on the nature of a child’s future relationship and their ability to be a parent themselves. Individuals who are strongly attached as children continue to be socially and emotionally competent in relationships and with their own children whereas infants with poor attachments have more social and emotional difficulties in childhood and in adulthood (the continuity hypothesis).

Social releasers are important for the development of this parent-infant attachment as they elicit caregiving from the parent. Social releasers are innate mechanisms so natural characteristics or behaviours of babies such as; Baby faces/cuteness Crying Smiling Clinging “pick me up!”

Critical period-Bowlby believed that if attachment hadn’t occurred by the age of two then a child will have difficulty forming attachments later on in life.

12

Exam Tip!To help you remember Bowlby’s theory use- CR.I.I.M.P.S

Cr. I .I . M. P .S

Critical period

Innate programming

Internal working model

Monotropy

Proximity

Social releasers

Evaluation of Monotropic theory

Research EvidenceEvidence from Harlow and Harlow (1962) supports Bowlby’s theory. They found that baby monkeys would cling to a wire model covered with cloth rather than a wire model that could feed it. The monkeys spent most of their time (22/24 hours) clinging to the towelling model, they went on to be bad mothers. These findings support the concepts of innate programming and Monotropy because the monkey instinctively sought to be close to one specific mother monkey even if it was a fake one and the fact if favoured the cloth monkey (22/24 hours spent with it) further supports the idea of monotropy. It also supports the idea of the internal working model because this monkey didn’t form adequate attachments and so didn’t form relationships as an infant monkey and went onto become a bad mother, suggesting that the monkey didn’t know how to look after infants because she had never learnt herself.

Evidence from Schaffer and Emerson (1964) which found that by 18 months old only 13% of the babies were attached to one person and many of the infants had as many as five attachment figures contradicts the idea of monotropy. Also Lamb (1982) found that infants had different attachments for different purposes rather than certain attachments being more important than others; fathers for play, mothers for comfort for example. (Not grounded)

Hazan and Shaver (1987) discovered that infants who had been securely attached when children went on to have happy, lasting and trusting relationships as adults, yet insecurely attached infants had less successful adult relationships. This evidence supports the internal working model. (not fully grounded)

13

Bailey (2007) also supports the idea of the internal working model being passed through families as 99 mothers with one year old babies who when interviewed reported having poor attachments to their own parents were more likely to be classified as having a poor attachment with their own babies during observations. (not grounded)See last section for further evaluation on the internal role model.

General evaluation

Economic implications/socially sensitive.The concept of monotropy also included in Bowlby’s 1950s World health organisation report suggested that babies needed constant care of the mother for healthy social development which led to stay at home mothering and still has a negative impact on mothers today. There is still the idea amongst some that mothers should not work. Erica Burman (1994) and other feminists state that it places a terrible burden of responsibility on mothers pushing them into particular lifestyle choices and placing the blame on them if anything goes wrong in a child’s life.Further evidence however shows that good substitute care either in a nursery, the father or a family member does not have a detrimental effect on social development and so a mother can happily return to work after having a child and remain economically active contradicting Bowlby’s theory.

Role of the father The concept of monotropy suggests that the father can’t play the role of the primary caregiver as Bowlby suggests it’s the mother or a female substitute which contradicts some research that says otherwise (see role of father section)

Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’. Types of attachment: secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant.

Types of attachment

14

Secure attachment- This is a strong and contented attachment of an infant to his/her caregiver, which develops as a result of sensitive responding by the caregiver to the infant’s needs. Securely attached infants are comfortable with social interaction and intimacy. Secure attachment is related to subsequent healthy cognitive and emotional development.

Insecure attachment- This is a form of attachment between infant and caregiver that develops as a result of a caregiver’s lack of sensitive responding to the infant’s needs. It may be associated with poor subsequent cognitive and emotional development.There are two types of insecure attachment; avoidant and resistant (ambivalent).Insecure-avoidant- A type of attachment that describes children who tend to avoid social interaction and intimacy with others.Insecure-resistant- A type of attachment that describes those infants that both seek and reject intimacy and social interaction.

Ainsworth and Bell's (1970) The Strange Situation

AimsTo produce a method for assessing the security of an infant’s attachment by placing the infant in a mildly stressful situation and observing the attachment behaviours that result.

ProceduresThe strange situation took place in a laboratory. The original participants were American infants aged between 12 and 18 months and their caregiver (usually their mother). The third individual involved in the strange situation was a stranger. The same stranger was used all the time. The procedure lasted for just over 20 minutes and the behaviour of the infants was closely observed to assess the infant’s levels of exploring, playing and distress behaviours at separation and reunion with the caregiver and when left with the stranger.

The eight stages of the strange situation are as follows:

Stage People in room Procedure1 (30 seconds) Caregiver, infant, researcher Researcher brings infant

and caregiver into room thenleaves.

2 (3 minutes) Caregiver and infant Caregiver sits, infant free to explore room.

3 (3 minutes) Caregiver, infant, stranger Stranger comes into room, after a while talks to the caregiver and then to the infant. Caregiver leaves.

4 (3 minutes) Infant and stranger Stranger keeps trying to talk to and play with the infant.

5 (3 minutes) Infant and caregiver Stranger leaves as caregiver returns. At the end of this stage the caregiver leaves.

15

6 (3 minutes) Infant Infant alone in room.

7 (3 minutes) Infant and stranger Stranger returns and tries tointeract with the infant.

8 (3 minutes) Caregiver and infant Caregiver returns and interacts with the infant, stranger leaves.

If the infant became severely distressed in a particular stage, that stage was shortened.

FindingsBelow are the behaviours observed in three types of attachment; secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant.

Secure Attachment (66%) Insecure-avoidant (22%) Insecure-resistant (12%)

Harmonious and cooperative relationship

High willingness to explore (using caregiver as safe base)

High stranger anxiety

Enthusiastic on reunion with caregiver

Some separation anxiety but maybe soothed

Avoid social interaction and intimacy with others and treat caregivers and strangers similarly

High willingness to explore (independently from caregiver)

Low stranger anxiety

Indifferent/little/no separation anxiety

Avoids contact on reunion with caregiver

Both seek and reject intimacy and social interaction

Low willingness to explore

High stranger anxiety

Very distressed on separation from caregiver (high separation anxiety)

Seeks and rejects reunion from caregiver (angrily resisting being picked up but seek proximity in different ways)

ConclusionThe Strange Situation is a controlled way of measuring individual differences in attachment behaviour, and these can be categorised into three broad types – secure (A), insecure avoidant (B) and insecure resistant (C). Secure attachment is likely to be the most common and preferred type of attachment in North America; Ainsworth and Bell argued that it linked to later healthy emotional and social development. They also said that there was an association between the mothers’ behaviour and the infant’s attachment.

Evaluation of Ainsworth strange situations

General research methods-control, demand characteristics, validity, sample

This study is a laboratory experiment using your research pack you should be able to explain strengths and weaknesses of this study. These can include; research in

16

Remember to link it to the study generic evaluations get limited marks!

controlled, reduced demand characteristics with the babies, possible demand characteristics with mothers, and investigator effects, internal validity, low ecological validity, biased sample.

Inter-rater reliability The study has inter-rater reliability. Different observers watching the same children tend to agree on what attachment type to classify infants as. Bick (2012) found it to be as high as 94% which means we can be confident that the attachment type of an infant observed by the strange situation does not just depend on who is observing them i.e. it is reliable.

Real world application The circle of security project teaches caregivers to better understand their infant’s distress signals and to increase understanding of what it is to be anxious. The project showed an increase in infants classified as securely attached from 32% to 40% which supports the research on attachment types because such research can be used to improve children’s lives which is a strength.

Depends on parent Main and Weston (1981) found that children acted differently depending on which parent they were with so may have appeared insecurely attached in the study to their mother but may well be attached to the father illustrating the attachment types are linked to individual relationships with carers and are not set characteristics of children.

Culture bound There is the belief that the study is culture bound, i.e. does not have the same meaning outside of the USA and Western Europe because children and caregivers may respond differently to the strange situations depending on their cultural experiences. Takahasi (1990) found that the test does not work on Japanese children because Japanese mothers are so rarely separated from their children that they show very high levels of separation anxiety and in observations Japanese mothers tended to race to their children and scoop them up at the reunion stage meaning the response was hard to observe. See next section on cultural variations.

Cultural variations in attachment.

Culture is the whole way of living your life – your religion, your language, your beliefs

A cross-cultural study is one that compares different cultures

17

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) cultural variations in attachment stylesAimsTo investigate variations in attachment styles between different cultures, using the results of studies carried out in various countries. These studies always used the strange situation; hence this study is a meta-analysis of those ones.

ProceduresThe results of 32 studies that used the strange situation to measure attachment behaviour were analysed. Research from 8 different countries was used, including Western cultures (e.g. USA, UK, Germany) and non-Western cultures (e.g. Japan, China, Israel). The 32 studies yielded results for 1,990 children.

Findings1.Secure attachment was the most common attachment style in all nations. 2. In Western cultures the dominant style of insecure attachment found was avoidant3.in non-Western cultures the dominant style of insecure attachment was resistant4. There was greater variation within cultures than between cultures.

Table to show percentages of children displaying attachment types in the 8 countriesCountry No. of

studiesPercentage of each attachment type

Securely attached

Avoidant Resistant

West Germany 3 57 35 8UK 1 75 22 3Netherlands 4 67 26 7Sweden 1 74 22 4Israel 2 64 7 29Japan 2 68 5 27China 1 50 25 25USA 18 65 21 14

ConclusionsAs secure attachment was the most common style of attachment, there may be universal characteristics in infant-caregiver interactions. The variations in attachment both between and within cultures may also show that child rearing practice varies between and within cultures.

Evaluation of Cultural variations in attachment.

Issues with Cross-Cultural comparisons and research such as Van Ijzendoorn1) Cultural Bias: There may be differences in how different cultures raise their children. It is possible

that behaviours that are valued in collectivist cultures differ from behaviours that are valued in individualistic cultures. The Strange Situation is based on ideas about attachment from a Eurocentric viewpoint, so people in the UK and USA may not value over-dependency on the caregiver (insecure-

18

resistant attachments), whereas this is valued in other cultures, such as Japan, thus incorrectly interpreting a behaviour as insecure, when it is secure.

2) Culture does not mean country, and each country will have a number of different sub-cultures. We must not conclude that all people from one country will act in a similar way. The few studies using the Strange Situation in Japan only represent a very small proportion of the population, and results may differ when other samples are used. For example, results in Tokyo seem to mirror findings from the US, but a more rural Japanese sample found an over-representation of insecure-resistant attachments.

3) Can we be sure that the procedures are standard from one culture to the next? Can we be sure that the tools used to measure behaviour are standardized in each study? This makes comparisons risky unless they are exact replications of each other.

Cultural changesSimonella (2014) conducted the strange situation in Italy very recently to see if the attachment levels were similar to those recorded in past studies. 76, 12 month olds were used and they found much lower rates of secure attachment than in previous studies 50% secure (66% in original study) 36% insecure-avoidant (22% in original study). The researchers suggest it reflects the increasing number of mothers of very young children working long hours and suggests that cultural changes over time can make a dramatic difference to attachment patterns.

Oumar (2001) studied the Dogon people of Mali using the strange situation and compared the findings to North American parents. They found no avoidant attachments compared to 23% in North American and 67% secure compared to 55% in North America. The style of child rearing is very different called natural parenting or attachment parenting with infants constantly in physical contact, breastfeeding on demand, co-sleeping and responding immediately to distress signals, so children aren’t left to cry like many western “cry it out” sleep techniques. This study again reflects the

difference in results to the strange situation depending on culture i.e. is culturally bound and also highlights the differences in childrearing around the world. Attachment parenting is becoming increasingly popular in the west and so research needs to be carried out here to see if this style of parenting in the west provided different results.

Culture boundThere is the belief that the study is culture bound, i.e. does not have the same meaning outside of the USA and Western Europe because children and caregivers may respond differently to the strange situations depending on their cultural experiences. Takahasi (1990) found that the test does not work on Japanese children because Japanese mothers are so rarely separated from their children that they show very high levels of separation anxiety and in observations Japanese mothers tended to race to their children and scoop them up at the reunion stage meaning the response was hard to observe. Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation.

Bowlby (1953) The Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis

1. In this hypothesis he suggested that “Mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health” (1953)

19

2. if a child does not have a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with his or her mother (or mother-substitute) then they would have trouble forming relationships with others later on, and would be at risk of behavioural disorders such as affectionless psychopathy (see later) but also risk of intellectual problems e.g. low IQ.

3. If the separation occurs before the age of two and a half (without a substitute) the effects on the emotional well-being of the child are particularly severe, (critical period)

4. although the child is at risk of deprivation up to the age of five. 5. Bowlby identified circumstances in which maternal deprivation could occur, which included the

mother being imprisoned, divorce or even the mother working full time.

Easy to remember summaryContinuous, warm mother love = Good mental healthBroken, poor mother love = risk of behavioural and intellectual issues, poor internal working modelBroken mother bond < 2 1/2 severe risk but still risks > 5

Bowlby based this theory on his own study the 44 thieves- you can use this study to evaluate his main theory.

Bowlby’s 44 thievesBowlby studied 88 children aged 5 to 16 who had been referred to a child guidance clinic where he worked. 44 were referred for stealing the other half were a control group; Bowlby diagnosed 16 of the 44 as affectionless psychopaths – shameless and conscienceless. The control group had been referred for other types of behaviour but none of them were diagnosed as affectionless psychopaths. Bowlby interviewed the children and their family to build a record of their early life experiences. Bowlby discovered that 86% of the affectionless psychopaths had experienced early and prolonged separation from their mothers; only 4% of the control group had experienced such separation. He concluded that the separation had caused affectionless psychopathy.

Review of the main findings. From 44 thieves, 16 were diagnosed with affectionless psychopaths. 86% of the 16 had suffered early and prolonged separation from their mothers. None of the control group were considered to be affectionless psychopaths, and only 4% of the control group had suffered early and prolonged separation.

Evaluation of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis

Research methods - Bias Sample bias- the sample were children who were had all been referred to his clinic for issues with their behavior so we can’t generalize these results to all children as what about children without issues that were separated?

20

Researcher bias- Bowlby carried out this research and came up with the term affectionless psychopaths and decided who fitted into each group so there is an issue with objectivity here.

Research methods-interviews

Remember to link it to the study generic evaluations get limited marks!

Interviews used so issues with extraneous variables and other problems related to interviews (see research methods.-Interviews used so Bowlby was able to go into depth and find out rich detailed information on what is a sensitive area.All of the negative evaluation points reduce the support for Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis.

Deprivation versus privation Rutter (1976) claimed that Bowlby was actually mixing up the concepts of deprivation and privation. He claims Bowlby never made it clear whether the child’s attachment bond had actually even been there in the first place and that in fact the severe long-term damage that Bowlby associated with deprivation was more likely to be the result of privation.

Individual differences Barrett (1997) reviewed various studies on separation and concluded that actually securely attached and more mature children may actually cope better and be less affected than insecurely attached children.

Real world application Bowlby’s theory and work by Robertson and himself had an enormous effect on childrearing and led to major social change in the way children were cared for in hospitals. Before the research parents were discouraged or even forbidden from visiting children who had to go into hospital but his research and footage showing how distressed these children became from Robertson changed this (See homework sheet for more details).

Romanian orphan studies: Effects of Institutionalisation

Institutionalisation refers to when children are looked after somewhere other than a home – for instance, they may be in some kind of orphanage or children’s home. Often (and particularly in the past) children had so many changes of carers in the

21

institution that it was impossible for them to form any attachments. If the children had been in the institution since they were babies, privation may result where the child has formed no attachments.

In Romania many children were placed in orphanages, although they were not always orphans. The grim conditions in the orphanages became known worldwide from 1989 and became a tragic opportunity to

look at the effects of institutionalisation. Your background research will have explained why Romania was particularly looked at.

Some of the Romanian orphans were adopted by British families. A team of psychologists (called the English and Romanian Adoptees Study Team) led by Michael Rutter have studied these children and the effects of their early experience. The studies are known as the ERA studies and

they are a series of natural experiments that have been published at various times; the children have been studied soon after arrival, at 4, 6, 11 and 15 and there are plans to study them into adulthood, so they are also longitudinal studies as they take place over time. Remember that a natural experiment is one in which the IV (exposure to conditions in the Romanian orphanages or lack of exposure for the control group) is not manipulated by the experimenter because it exists prior to the study; the experimenters simply measure the effect of the IV.

Rutter (1998)

Procedures -111 Romanian children were assessed on a variety of measures of physical and intellectual ability on arrival in Britain. Most of them had been in institutional care from shortly after they were born but they were naturally split into 3 conditions 1-adopted before 6 months 2-adopted between 6 months and 2 years and 3-adopted after 2 years.

The orphans were assessed for height, head circumference and cognitive functioning on arrival in the U.K and assessed again at 4. A control group of 52 British adopted children were also assessed to ascertain whether negative effects were due to separation from carers or the institutional conditions of the Romanian orphanages.

Findings-The children’s IQ was tested upon arrival in the UK and the average score for the Romanian orphans was 63. For those adopted when over 6 months old, the average was 45. Physical development was also poor, 51% of them being in the bottom 3% of the population for weight. They were also shorter in height than was normal for their age and had smaller head circumferences.The Romanian orphans were tested again at the age of 4 and compared to a control group of 52 British-adopted children, all aged 4, who had showed none of the negative effects suffered by the Romanians.

-At the age of 4 orphans adopted before 6 months showed no significant differences in either intellectual or physical development with the control group. All the children had improved though with the average IQ of the Romanians increasing from 63 to 107. However for those adopted after 6 months, it had gone from 45 to 90. The older adoptees tended to do less well in terms of physical development too.

In follow up studies when the children were 6 and 11, Rutter (2007) found that many had normal levels of functioning. However 54% of children who displayed disinhibited attachment at 6 years old still displayed

22

disinhibited attachment it at 11 and many of them were receiving help from either special educational and or mental health services.

Disinhibited attachment is characterised by a lack of close, confiding relationships, rather indiscriminate friendliness and clingy, attention-seeking behaviour, a relative lack of differentiation in response to adults (treating them all alike, a tendency to go off with strangers and a lack of checking back with a parent in anxiety-provoking situations.

Le mare and Audet (2006) carried out a longitudinal study on 36 Romanian orphans adopted into Canada. They were looking specifically at physical growth and health and found that adopted orphans were physically smaller than control group at 4 ½ years old but that this difference had disappeared by 10 ½ and the same was true for physical health so shows that recovery is possible from the physical effects of institutionalisation.

Evaluation of Romanian orphan studies

Reliability Many other studies of Romanian orphans have found similar results to Rutter. Morison (2005) who studied Romanian orphans in Canada, and O’Connor (1999) who found indiscriminate friendliness (part of disinhibited attachments-treating strangers like a primary caregiver) was positively correlated to length of time spent in an institution. This suggests that Rutter’s findings are reliable.

Longitudinal studies The children were followed over many years and so we are able to see the real life, long term effects of institutionalisation; a very bleak picture would’ve been painted after 4 years! These studies are also continuing into the future so we will be able to see even longer term effects.

Natural experiments and extraneous variables As these pieces of research had to be natural experiments there are of course going to be issues with extraneous variables and difficulties in establishing cause and effect. For instance Rutter acknowledges that is was difficult to find out information about the quality of care the children received in the institutions and thus the level of privation. Some children coped much better than others and it is thought that some children may have received special attention in the orphanages if they maybe smiled more for instance and so did have some early attachment experiences this is another variable uncontrolled.

Real life application The findings of Romanian orphanage studies have led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions and so have been immensely valuable in practical terms (Langton 2006). Children in institutions now are assigned a key worker and have perhaps only one or two other caregivers

23

responsible for them so that the children have a change to develop normal attachments, avoiding disinhibited attachments.

Summary of the effects of institutionalization

Some of the negative outcomes shown by the Romanian children could be overcome through adequate substitute care. Remember at aged 11 just under half of the children in Rutter’s study had normal levels of functioning.

But intervention should take place before 6 months of age as those adopted after tended to have lower IQ’s and be less physically developed.

Many children, especially those who had been adopted later, displayed disinhibited attachment - characterised by a lack of close, confiding relationships, rather indiscriminate friendliness and clingy, attention-seeking behaviour, a relative lack of differentiation in response to adults (treating them all alike, a tendency to go off with strangers and a lack of checking back with a parent in anxiety-provoking situations.

Some research shows that the negative physical effects of institutionalization can be reversed by 10 1/2.

Separation from mother alone is not sufficient to cause negative outcomes as British children had been separated but were not developmentally delayed

The effects of Romanian orphans are still not fully clear as they still need to be followed into adulthood to see if the negative effects can still be overcome with more time.

The influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships, including the role of the internal working model.

The internal working modelWe have covered this already when looking at explanations of attachment. It was suggested by Bowlby that a child’s first relationship with their primary attachment figure forms a mental representation for the child and this relationship acts as a template or shapes all future relationships whether they be childhood, romantic, plutonic, or with their own children. The

24

continuity hypothesis is based upon the internal working model and says that the specific attachment types of children are also reflected in their adult relationships.

Childhood relationships: securely attached children have better friendships and are the least likely to bully and be bullied.Belsky (1999) found that 3-5 year old securely attached children were more curious, resilient, self-confident, got along better with other children and were more likely to form close relationships. Why? Securely attached children have higher expectations that others are friendly and trusting and so enables easier relationships with others and closer relationships as they are prepared to be trusting and let people get close to them.

Smith (1998) assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using standard questionnaires in 196 children aged 7-11 from London and found that secure children are unlikely to be involved in bullying. Insecure-avoidant children were most likely to be victims and insecure-resistant were most likely to be bullies.

Why?As securely attached children tend to be more confident (Belsky 199) they are less likely to be the target of bullies for fear that they will stand up for themselves and as they have close friendships bullies risk then having the support of other children.

Adult romantic relationships: securely attached children have longer-lasting romantic relationships

Hazan and Shaver (1987) The love quiz

ProcedureThey analysed the responses from 620 respondents of a “love quiz” they published in the rocky mountain news (an American small-town newspaper). Sample-205 were from men, 415 women; 14-82 years old, 91% heterosexual, 42% married, 28% divorced or widowed, 9% co-habiting and 31% dating (some fitted more than one category).The questionnaire firstly asked questions to assess current or most important relationship, secondly it asked questions about attitudes towards love as an assessment of the internal working model. Thirdly investigated attachment history to identify current and childhood attachment types by asking respondents were to pick which of three descriptions best applied to their inner feelings about romantic relationships (see below)

FindingsThe table below shows the percentage of respondents classified as secure, avoidant or resistant. Attachment style % of

respondentsResponse

Secure 56 I find it easy getting close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being abandoned or about someone getting close to me

Insecure-avoidant 23 I am uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to

25

trust them, difficult to depend on them. I am nervous when anybody gets close to and love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

Insecure-resistant 19 I find others are reluctant to get close as I’d like. I worry my partner doesn’t really love me or won’t stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person and this desire scares people away.

Table below shows what percentage of each attachment type endorsed each statement.Internal working model statements that respondents agreed with

Secure Avoidant Resistant

It is easy to fall in love. I feel myself beginning to fall in love often

9% 4% 20%

Intense romantic love is common at the beginning of a relationship but rarely lasts forever.

28% 41% 34%

It is rare to find someone you can fall in love with 43% 66% 56%The kind of head-over-heels love depicted in novels and movies doesn’t exist.

13% 25% 28%

-Securely attached respondents tended to have a positive internal working model (see table)-They also found a positive correlation between attachment type and love experiences; the more attached a person was the more positive they found their love experiences. Securely attached respondents described love experiences as happy, friendly, trusting and were able to accept and support their partner despite their faults. -Securely attached love relationships were more enduring- lasting on average 10 years compared to five for resistant and 6 avoidant and if married they tended not to divorce.-Both insecure types were vulnerable to loneliness with resistant being the most vulnerable-Avoidant types tended to reveal jealousy and fear of intimacy.

Relationships with own children.

If the internal working model is to be believed then childhood attachment type should affect parenting style i.e. if you are a securely attached child then you should have a secure relationship with your children and vice versa. This idea is supported by Harlow’s studies we looked at earlier as the motherless monkeys went onto become bad mothers but do human studies find the same thing? Bailey (2007) considered the attachments of 99 mothers to their babies and

to their own mothers using the strange situation and an adult attachment interview and they found the majority of women had the same attachment classification both to their babies and their own mothers. Quinton (1984) compared 50 women raised in institutions with 50 women raised as home and found that when the women were in their 20’s the ex-institutional women experienced extreme difficulties acting as parents and more of their children has spent time in care.

Evaluation of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships

Research methods evaluation Most of the research mentioned here used questionnaires or interviews and largely self-report

26

Remember to link it to the study generic evaluations get limited marks!

and so encounter the common strengths and weaknesses of these methods and you can add more evaluation for yourself (see research pack).

Social desirability bias Some of the problems to consider are social desirability bias especially in Hazan and Shaver as participants may be reluctant to admit for instance that they begin to find themselves falling in love often. This means the validity of the research is limited because they depend on respondents being honest and having a realistic view of relationships.

Retrospective data Most studies rely on asking adults to recall their early lives in order to assess infant attachment but such recollections are likely to be flawed as our memories of the past are not always that accurate.

Causation Also the research linking the internal working model to relationships is correlational rather than experimental so therefore we can’t claim that the reason for the later relationship style is the earlier attachment there may be other reasons such as the child’s temperament. It also means fortunately that if you have had a poor relationships as a child you can still have good, healthy and secure relationships as an adult. So these factors limit the internal working.

Some longitudinal research contradicts the model When people were tracked from childhood and followed to adulthood (rather than self-report as adults) then the results contradict the internal working model. Zimmerman(2000) studied 44 German children at 12-18 months to assess attachment style then again at 16 and found that childhood attachment was not a good predictor of adolescent attachment and that life events often altered secure attachments to insecure.Rutter (1999) also found the change could occur in the other direction and in his study found that a group of people who experienced problematic relationships with their parents went on to achieve secure, stable and happy adult relationship.

Low correlations Steele (1998) found only a small correlation of 0.17 between having a secure attachment type in childhood and early adulthood. Fraley (2002) conducted a review of 27 samples where infants were assessed in infancy and reassessed up to 20 years later and found correlations ranging from 0.50 to as low as 0.10. So such correlations suggest that

27

attachment type is not very stable.

28