Harlow and Harlow (1962) Method and results
Two conditions for monkey (wire surrogate or cloth covered surrogate).
Monkey with cloth covered mother was significantly more attached and grew healthier. They preferred the cloth even when a wire mother provided food.
However, all monkeys who were raised in isolation were poor parents, even violent and aggressive towards their offspring, agrees with Bowlby (1969) and Lorenz (1935) that there is a sensitive period, and that relationships form a template for future social functioning (internal working model)
What does Harlow and Harlow show
Attention is more necessary than basic biological needs. During a time when behaviourism was preferred, highlighted the importance of caregiver interaction.
Hodges and Tizard (1989) Findings
Following 65 ex-institionalised chidlren (from 4 months to 16 years).
Privation caused emotional, cognitive and developmental deficits.
More aggressive, more attention seeking and less social with peers.
Found those who were adopted faced fewer problems (the adverse affects had been reversed)
Ellis (2013)
Women who lost their mothers before the age of 17 were more likely to suffer from depression
Gardner (1972)
Deprivation Dwarfism: lack of affection / care caused some children’s growth to be stunted. This was also seen in Genie (locked away since a baby, lack physical deveoplment, language production)
Bowlby (1969) said what about attachment? (5)
- It is innate and adaptive
- There is sensitive period (up to 2 and a half years), where attachment must form, else it will not
- Attachment figures are secure bases for children to explore from
- Continuity hypothesis: Later life reflects the bond in childhood
- Form an internal working model to base future relationships on (like a template)
Tronick (1992)
Found (As Bowlby predicted) that children have a hierachy and preference for a primary attachment figure (typically the mother. The Efe tribe share child rearing, even breastfeeding other peoples children, but children slept in their mother’s bed at night and showed that they had one, sole attachment figure
Kagan’s hypothesis (1984)
A child’s temperament influences attachment styles
Fox (1989)
Studied children with different attachments and temperaments (determined easy = slept easily, ate regularly and was open to new experiences) had more secure attachments compared to difficult children.
Said that attachment theory is in fact an amalgamation of factors, and should be an interactionist theory (the child’s temperament and the parent’s sensitivity to their needs)
Ainsworth (1970) method
In a laboratory style experiement (was observational) using stimulus and response style examination, a parent, child and stranger were in a room together. Firstly only mother and child, the mother leaves, the mother returns, the stranger enters.
Examined stranger and seperation anxiety
Ainsworth (1970) results
4 types of attachment styles were found:
- Secure (upset at leaving, happy on reunion, confident exploration from secure base)
- Insecure (avoidant) Avoids social interaction
- Insecure (ambivalent) Seeks and then rejects comfort
- insecure (disorganised) seeks and rejects comfort and intimacy (the worst form of attachment)
Rothbaum (2011)
Investigated attachment between Japanese and Western cultures (collectivist and individualistic)
Found insecure ambivalent was more common in Japan. This is formed from the encouragment of group-focused and emotion suppression, whereas the West prizes independence and exploration.
Issues with attachment
- Peers can shape children more than attachment figures (Harris 1998; see Vygotsky, 1938 sociocultural theory)
- The attachment model is based on the observations of momentary seperation / reunions. This does not capture the complete complexity of attachment (Lee, 2004).
