Attachment

AO1

Lorenz: Random allocation, 1/2 geese eggs hatched with Lorenz & 1/2 with mother; mixed up in upturned box, incubator group followed Lorenz and others the mother 

Critical period: Lengthened the time between birth and seeing 1st object - imprinting needs to be within 24 hours

Innate & irreversible

Harlow: 16 rhesus monkeys, one wire mother with food, one cloth mother no food, spent more time with cloth mother. In fear condition the monkeys went to cloth mother. As adults the prived monkeys hurt offspring. 

AO3

+ Influence on understanding of human attachment (Bowlby)

+ Guiton (1966) sexual imprinting on yellow glove

- Issues with animal extrapolation

+ Real life application

- Ethical issues of Harlow​​​​

​​

AO1

Strange situation; controlled observation, standardised procedure of 8 stages of 2-3 minutes, 2 way mirror, target behaviour = proximity seeking, secure base, stranger anxiety, separation anxiety, reunion behaviour.

Three attachment types:

Secure (Type B) 60-75%: moderate separation/ stranger anxiety - happy reunion behaviour,  Insecure-Avoidant (Type A) 20-25% low separation/ stranger anxiety - indifferent reunion behaviour,, Insecure-Resistant (Type C) 3% high separation/ stranger anxiety - resistant reunion behaviour,

AO3

+ Standardised procedure. 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

- Ignores temperament (Kagan)​​

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

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 driver & the food is the primary driver

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​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

AO1

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

Secure attachment most common

Individualist countries had highest insecure-avoidant (Germany highest)

Collectivist countries had highest insecure-resistant (Israel & China highest)

Variations in countries 1.5 larger than between countries

Simonelli (2014) 76 infants, 36% insecure-avoidant. Temporal validity due to working mothers?

Jin (2012) 87 infants, only one avoidant baby, 90% of infant alone conditions had to be stopped - different parenting styles?

AO3

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

- V&K (1988) individualistic culture bias: 27/32 studies

- Imposed etic to use a Westernised test to judge others

+ Standardised procedure. High inter-rater reliability 94%.​​​​​​

AO1

First attachment template for future relationships (IWM)

Continuity hypothesis

Romantic: +ve IWM = good relationship expectations

-ve IWM = poor relationship expectations

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

Parenting: Bailey (2007) interviewed mothers on attachment with own mother and observed attachment style of their infant. They found 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

+ Contradictory case study evidence e.g. Genie & Czech twins

- Retrospective nature of studies

- Methodological issues of Love Quiz

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

AO1

Miss Ceci (acronym)

Attachment is innate for survival (evolutionary theory)

Monotropy - infants have a special bond with mother (or substitute)

Internal working model - blueprint of relationships

Continuity hypothesis - the IWM stays consistent in lifetime

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

Social releasers - innate behaviours that trigger attachments system of adults

AO3

+ Brazleton (1975) importance of social releasers

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

+ Harlow's monkeys

- Social sensitivity: expectations of females

- S&E (1964) multiple attachments

​

AO1

Maternal deprivation is prolonged separation

Critical period of 0-2.5 years

Best dose for infant to be away from mum is zero dose

Deprivation leads to irreversible damage: delinquency, low IQ and affectionless psychopathy

44 thieves study: 44 'delinquents', families and ppt interviewed, 14/44 affectionless psychopaths and 12/14 experienced maternal deprivation

AO3

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

- Social desirability bias of study

- Bowlby confused privation and deprivation

+ Too deterministic (irreversible) Romanian orphans reversed IQ damage before 6 mths

+ Social sensitivity