top of page
Image by Hu Chen

Attachment

Caregiver-infant interactions

AO1

Basis for attachment

Reciprocity: turn taking; active role; alert phases

Interactional synchrony: mirroring

Meltzoff & Moore (1977) - IS shown as early as 2-3 weeks old

Still face experiment: Tronick (1975)

AO3

Highly controlled research

Koepke (1983) failed to replicate M&M

- Isabella (1989) securely attached children more likely to interact

- Methodological issues: babies

 

Animal

studies

AO1

Lorenz: 1/2 geese eggs hatched with Lorenz & 1/2 with mother; mixed up; incubator group followed Lorenz and others the mother 

Critical period: imprinting needs to be within a few hours

Harlow: 16 rhesus monkeys, one wire mother with food, one cloth mother no food, spent more time with and when scared went to cloth mother. As adults 'prived' monkeys hurt offspring. 

AO3

+ Guiton (1966) sexual imprinting on yellow glove

- Issues with animal extrapolation

+ Real life application

- Ethical issues of Harlow

 

Types of attachment: Ainsworth

AO1

Strange situation; controlled observation, 7 stages of 3 minutes, 2 way mirror, target behaviour = proximity seeking, secure base, stranger anxiety, separation anxiety, reunion behaviour.

Three attachment types:

Secure (Type B) 60-75%, Insecure-Avoidant (Type A) 20-25%, Insecure-Resistant (Type C) 3%

AO3

+ High inter-rater reliability 94%

+ Good predictive validity of future outcomes (Hazan & Shaver)

- Main & Soloman added Type D Insecure-Disorganised

- Ethnocentric bias - imposed etic to generalise to other cultures

Romanian orphans: Institutionalisation

AO1

Rutter (2011) 165 Romanian orphans and 52 adopted 'control' group, longitudinal study (tested at 4, 6, 11, 15 and 22-25 yrs)

Adopted <6 months IQ 102

 Adopted 6 months - 2 years IQ 86

Adopted >2 years IQ 77

Adopted >6 months disinhibited attachment (indiscriminate attachment)

Support Bowlby's sensitive period 

Zeanah (2005) 95 institutionalised Romanian children 12-31 mths

19% securely attached compared to 74% controls

44% disinhibited attachment compared to 20% controls

AO3

+ Real world application

+ Longitudinal research -long terms effects

- Low generalisability - specific type of deprivation

- Complexity of institutions - confounding variables

Schaffer's Stages of attachment

AO1

Stage 1: Asocial - weeks

Stage 2: Indiscriminate - 2-7 months, preference for people, no separation anxiety

Stage 3: Specific - 7 months, separation anxiety, primary attachment formed

Stage 4: Multiple - 1 year, secondary attachments 29% within one month

S&E (1964) 60 babies, working class, Glasgow, attached to most sensitive to babies needs

AO3

- Social desirability bias

- Lacks population validity

- Practical applications

- Methodological issues: babies

Learning theory of attachment

AO1

Cupboard love - based on food

CC: Mother (NS) is paired with food (UCS) so CS-CR (pleasure) link is formed

OC: When baby cries mother feeds (+ve reinforcement)

Mother keeps feeding the baby to remove crying (-ve reinforcement)

Mum is a secondary drive & the food is the primary drive

AO3

- Harlow's research

- Quality time is most important to form attachment (S&E 1964)

- Environmentally reductionist

- Hay and Vespo (1988) SLT better explains modelling attachment behaviour and vicarious reinforcement of wanted behaviours

Cultural variations in attachment

AO1

Van Ijkendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) meta analysis; 32 studies, 8 countries, 1990 ppts

Secure attachment most common

Individualist countries had highest insecure-avoidant 

Collectivist countries had highest insecure-resistant

Simonelli (2014) 76 infants, 50% insecure - temporal validity?

Jin (2012) 87 infants, only one avoidant baby

AO3

+ V&K (1988) - more difference within a country rather than across - cannot generalise

V&K (1988) individualistic culture bias

- Imposed etic to use a Westernised test to judge others

Early attachment on later relationships

AO1

First attachment template for future relationships (IWM)

Romantic: Good attachment - good relationship expectations

Insecure attachment - poor relationship expectations

Hazan & Shaver (1987) - resistant = shorter relationships, avoidant = not like intimacy, secure attachments = long lasting

Parenting: Bailey (2000) same attachment with baby as to own mother; Harlow (1966)

Friendships: Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998) secure not involved in bullying, avoidant likely to be victims, resistant likely to be perpetrator 

AO3

+ Supportive evidence (above)

- Retrospective studies

- Confounding variables

- Does highlighting a risk lead to a self fulfilling prophecy?

Role of the

father

AO1

S&E (1964) 3% solely attached to dad, 75% had attachment to dad by 18 months

Biological differences - mum has more oestrogen/ oxytocin

Social differences - expectations of females = caring

Father as a secondary role (play)

AO3

A distinct role of playmate (Grossman, 2002)

+ Hrdy (1999) fathers less likely to detect distress

- Belsky (2009) depends on security of adult relationship

-/+ Impact on the economy

Bowlby's theory of attachment

AO1

Miss Ceci (acronym)

Attachment is innate for survival (evolutionary theory)

Monotropy - bond with mother, law of continuity (more constant, better attachment) and law of accumulated separation (zero dose)

Social releasers

Critical period (0-2.5 yrs) & sensitive period (0-5 yrs)

Internal working model - blueprint

Continuity hypothesis

AO3

+ Brazleton (1975) importance of social releasers

+ Bailey (2007) IWM: 99 mothers - those with insecure attachment style had poor attachment with own child

+ Rutter (2011) importance of critical period

- Social sensitivity: expectations of females

- S&E (1964) multiple attachments

- Ignores temperament (Kagan)

Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis

AO1

Continuous care is imperative to avoid maternal deprivation

Critical period of 0-2.5 years

Deprivation can leads to low IQ and affectionless psychopathy

44 thieves study: 44 'delinquents', families and ppt interviewed, 14/44 affectionless psychopaths and 12 had experienced prolonged separation.

AO3

- Low reliability - Lewis did not replicate results on wider sample

- Social desirability bias of study

- Bowlby confused privation and deprivation

+ Case study of Genie: supportive evidence

+ Real life application

Contact

Like what you see? Get in touch to learn more.

Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page