Attachment evaluations

Question 1

Caregiver infant interactions in humans A03

Answer 1

P- scientific controlled procedure
Ev- used slow motion camera, dummy in mouth, infant on mothers lap and same facial expressions shown
Ex- ensures accuracy of babies facial expressions e.g. dummies in mouth eliminates unwanted expressions. Thereofre certain babies were mirroring strangers at only 3 days
L- However lack ecological validity. Set in unfamiliar environment so babies may act differently in own homes e.g. pay less attention to caregiver because of toys. Thereofre real life interactional synchrony not shown

P- unscientific as making inferences
Ev- Cannot ask infants why they ate behaving as they are so relation to attachment is an inference
Ex- It is unclear whether behaviour is merely imitation of aduly signals to learn motor movements and develop expressions or a form of attachment behaviour.
L- However, many studies have observed interactions between mothers and infants and found same pattern of interaction

P- cultural bias
Ev- Kenyan mothers have little physical interactions ot physical contact with their infants, however, the infants go on to have secure attachments.
Ex- therefore interactional synchrony is not shown universally so is not a necessary caregiver infants interaction to form secure attachments
L- On the other hand this is only compared to one emic study in kenya. It may be possible it is demonstrated across most other cultures therefore cannot be rejected

Question 2

Stages of attachment key study Schaffer and Emerson A03

Answer 2

P- highyl scientific and controlled
Ev- Controlled observation, clear behavioural categories e.g. crying for signs of anxiety. Structured interview used and same procedure to test separation and stranger anxiety. Triangulation of methods to reduce social desirability.
Ex- Therefore strong
causal explanation- develop the attachment behaviours as infants age. Implies attachment is biologically innate.

P- On the other hand there is sample bias
Ev- Schaffer & Emerson used middle class infants from Glasgow
Ex- Therefore may only apply to parents from middle class Scottish background. Not possible to apply to different collectivist cultures or other classes.

P- However there are ethical issues
Ev- Infants put under mild stress during observations. Unable to get direct informed consent from infants.
Ex- This means the stress they experienced may affect their future development. Secondly they may regret taking part in the study once an adult
L- However there was parentsl consent and parentd had right to withdraw child if they felt stress was too high. Moreover stress was only mild.

Question 3

Animal studies Lorenz & Harlows Monkeys A03

Answer 3

P- strength- Lorenz’s study had strong causal explanation of how attachments form
Ev- standardised procedure in incubation, only difference is whether it hatched to Lorenz or goose
Ex- Therefore can be certain goslings imprint on first thing they see during critical period. This implies human infants also imprint onto caregivers upon birth
L- However could be argued it was artificial setting to be hatched in and this may be particular to only Lorenzs study and goslings

P- However futher research support for imprinting
Ev- Leghorn chicks were exposed to yellow rubber gloves frok birth. They became imprinted on gloves and male chicks later tried to mate with it
Ex- Therefore impritning is not particular to goslings but also explains how attachment developes through impritning in othet precocial species increasing credibility
L- However animal studies cannot be generalised to humans. Goslings and leghorn chicks are precocial(born mobile and self sufficient) unlike humans who are altricial (under developed and require more care) Therfore goslings/chicks may need to imprint durinf critical period for survival

P- However, Lorenz was incorrect to suppose imprinting was permanent
Ev- Lorenz believed impritning was irreversible and permanently stamped on nervous system. However when chicks encouraged to spend time with other chicks they engaged in normal mating behaviour again
Ex- Therefore Lorenz may not have given enough time for goslings to mix with species to reverse imprinting. Therefore there is no fixed behaviour or critical period
L- This has real life implications as immediate contact with caregiver is key too attachment e.g. hospital policy for immediate skin to skij contact upon birth

Question 4

Animal studies Harlows Monkeys A03

Answer 4

P- stength- Harlows study had strong caus explanation of how attachment forms
Ev- all same experiment e.g. cage with cloth or wire monkey. All taken away at birth (privation)
Ex- Therfore can state cloth monkey was more important in creating secure base. Hence comfort is more important in attachment than food
L- However small sample size (8).
Hard to generalise to all mammals as could be unique factors with those particular rhesus monkeys. On other hand they are evolutionary closer to humans than goslings or leghorn chicks so more generalisable.

P- However, not generalisable to human attachment
Ev- Rhesus monkeys are evolutionary futher away from humans than other primates
Ex- Rhesus monkeys have not developed language unlike humans. Therfore may be more imoortance placed on comfort than with humans. The critical period for human attachment seems to coincide with language development. Therfore developed of language to communicate feelings may be more important than actual skin to skin contact and comfort
L- However both rhesus monkeys and humans are altricial and are underdeveloped when born. Hence have far more similarities as species than precocial species such as goslings or chicks. Hence this is better comparison of animal attachment

P- However Harlow was criticised for assuming the cloth monkey was preferred due to comfort
Ev- Critics argued monkeys choose cloth for warmth
Ex- Therefore Harlows study was not accurately testing attachment behaviour as rhesus monkeys were in an artificially simplistic environment
L- However, Harlow argued this criticism was invalid as the floor of the cage was heated and monkeys did not lay on the floor

Question 5

Explanations of attachment learning theory A03

Answer 5

P- criticism lack research support
Ev- evidence of cc is from pavlovs dogs
Ex- This research is not related at all to attachment. Therefore cannot say humans attach because of associating food with their mother. Ignores roles of emotions and language

P- However reductionist to assume all attachment is due to cupboard love
Ev- Harlow proved that monkeys prefer comfort over food. If learning theory was correct monkeys should have preferred wire monkey with bottle
Ex- Therefore learning theory is poor explanation of attachment. Too simplstic. It would be neglect if parents only needed to feed there children to attach because this ignores emotional support and social interactions

P- On other hand it explains how we form multiple attachments
Ev- We can attach to whoever feeds us e.g. grandparents
Ex- Therefore explains how attachments are formed with mutliple caregivers. Unlike Bowlbys monotropic theory that assumes maternal is more important than fathers.
L- Howevr LT assumes attachment is environmental ignoring role of evolution. If all mammals have a need to attach it suggests universal and biological explanation. Undermines LT

Question 6

Explanations of attachment- Bowlbys Monotropic theory A03

Answer 6

P- strength, research support for innate and critical period
Ev- Lorenz, gosling imprinted within fixed critical period
Ex- this supports idea that attachment is innate and has evolved to survive
L- However Lorenz proved critical period with precocial animals. Bowlby suggested more sensitive period of 0-18 months as humans are altricial and have more gradual development

P- Strength- research support for monotrophy figure
Ev- Schaffer & Emerson- by 7 months old formed their main attachment to 1 caregiver 65% was mother
Ex- This supports Bowlby theory that its the first main caregiver attachment that is most important in developing the internal working model, a template to adulthood relationships
L- However Schaffer and Emerson also said that 10-11 months, multiple attachments are formed which criticises Bowlbys theory. Though Bowlby accepts mutliple attachments theyre are no important for forming secure attachments in future

P- Strength- research support for continuity hypothesis
Ev- Hazan & Shaver love quiz, positive correlation between childhood and adulthood attachment
Ex- proves attachment type continues into adulthood and effefts future reactionships as secure are more likely to have lost lasting relationships, insecure more likely to divorce and have mental health issues.
L- However evidence is self report and retrospective, assumes people can accurately recall childhood. Secondly its hard determinism.

Question 7

Ainsworth’s strange situation (A03)

Answer 7

P- strength- highly controlled observation and high inter-rater reliability
Ev- Camera, procedure, same room+ materials
Ex- Strong causality: show 3 types of attachment and multiple studies support (e.g. 18 studies from USA in VIK cultural variations study). Also strong inter-observer reliability (0.93) due to behavioural categories being operationalised.
L- Lack of ecological validity, setting fake and unfamiliar to infants and parents. Children may have acted differently within own homes.

P- criticism- unethical
Ev- Infants put under mild stress through separation and stranger anxiety
Ex- infants distressed. This was evident in Takahashi’s study in Japan where parents withdraw infants from study due to distress seen
L- Ainsworth argued stress level mild and was similar to everyday experience. This may be true of individualistic cultures, however, in collectivist cultures like Japan parent separation is not everyday. Therefore, she has an imposed etic in design of her study.

P- Strength- support for Bowlby’s monotropic theory.
Ev- evidence for securely attached children having secure base, and therefore willing to explore, being the most healthy and having an internal working model of trusting others and feeling loved
Ex- Attachment evolved as Bowlby suggested to ensure successful future relationships in order to pass on genes successfully through secure attachments
L- Gender bias. Only of mothers so ignored role of father or other. Generalised all caregivers minimising differences. Needed to use both.

Question 8

Cultural Variations in Attachment (A03)

Answer 8

P- universality in secure attachments (no cultural variations)
Ev- VIK found secure attachment highest across 8 countries ( 50-75% similar to Ainsworth’s 66)
Ex- Secure innate hence most common so strange situation can be generalised across world
L- Imposed etic- method was western (assumption of separation) but not case in collectivist

P- cultural variations in insecure
Ev- Ainsworth assumed insecure avoidant most common insecure attachment and insecure resistant least. However, collectivist most common was insecure resistant (Japan 27% similar to Ainsworth’s insecure avoidant 22%)
Ex- Strange situation not accurate measurement of insecure attachment universally due to imposed etic. e.g. Japan (made children appear resistant when actually separation new experience)
L- Further criticism is it supports idea that Ainsworth SS is unethical to apply to collectivist e.g. Takahashi

P- However, also cultural variations of insecure attachment in individualistic
Ev- Germany= high IA 35 compared to 21-26 in other individualistic
Ex- Therefore IA attachment not same even within same culture e.g. west germany encourage independence, but SS assumes unhealthy imposing US perspective
L- Therefore SS does have cultural bias. Should have used indigenous researchers within the cultures to design method to measure attachment to ensure derived rather than imposed etic.

Answer 9

P-Criticism – methodology is correlational, self report and retrospective bias.

Ev: based on self-report from parents and the adolescent, and was correlational. It looked back at the adolescents children from self reports from the parents.

Ex: Social desirability from the parents, and inaccurate memory of events. Cannot say that maternal deprivation causes psychopathy as it is only correlational. Could be many other factors, e.g. poverty, poor educational achievement, criminality within the family

L: Impossible for Bowlby to study experimentally as unethical to create maternal deprivation. However, could have created longitudinal study (repeatedly observing and collecting data from the same individuals or group over an extended period) rather than retrospectively looking at “psychopaths” to see if they had maternal deprivation. Many people with maternal deprivation are upstanding members of the community.

P: Strength – research support for effects of maternal deprivation
Ev: Harlow’s monkeys: they had socialisation difficulties, e.g. aggression & difficulties interacting with others.
Ev: Rutter: children in institutions have a lower IQ, more mental health problems and showed aggressive behaviour.
Ex: Therefore,important that there is not a disruption of attachment from the monotrophy figure in the child’s early years. This has implications for policies of the custodial sentencing of female offenders with infants.
L: However, Rutter accused Bowlby of assuming deprivation and privation are the same. In fact, the effects of maternal deprivation can be reversed, unlike privation where never having an attachment has more long term effects. Therefore, Bowlby have been measuring privation.

Criticism – social sensitivity of findings.
Ev: Bowlby states role of the maternal figure most important for preventing psychopathy, and anti-social behaviour.

Ex: Implies blame of women for the criminal behaviour of their children. Removes personal responsibility for offender, and onto women for IQ, mental health and anti-social behaviour difficulties. Creates guilt for those working women; implies that women should remain at home for the first 18 months & up to 5 years of age; but minimises the role for men.

L: However, mothers who are happy at work, create better child develop than those frustrated by staying at home. Therefore, maybe Bowlby lacks temporal validity and represents when women stayed at home and little appreciation of cultural differences across the world (e.g. not every child is brought up by the biological mother).

Question 10

Romanian Orphans Study: Effects of Institutionalisation (AO3)

Answer 10

P: Research support - Institutionalised has long term effects
Ev: Hodges & Tizard – 65 UK children in an institution. By age 16, all children in institution had DA problems with peers, considered bullies and sought attention from adults.
Ex: Privation = long term effects on ability to form peer relationships, low IQ.
L: However, both Rutter and H&T had sample bias. Romanian adopted in UK and UK adopted. Only relevant of these cultures and attitudes towards learning disabilities and adoption.

P: Criticism – assumes long term effects are permanent
Ev: Czech Twins – raised in extreme isolation when mother dies in childbirth (like Genie). 7 years locked up by stepmother. They had no language ability and physically stunted.
Ex: It was assumed the effect was permanent, however when placed with their aunts by age 14yrs had near normal social and intellectual functioning, 20yrs were above intelligence and excellent relationships with others. Therefore, reversible.
L: However, the twins had each other, and had formed attachments with aunts before being taken by father and stop mother. Hence, could be more maternal deprivation than privation.

P: Criticism – quasi lack of causality
Ev: Privation is not the only factor; the IV was not manipulated (as it is unethical to create privation for research purposes).
Ex: Could be other factors e.g. the reasons for the institutionalisation (e.g. learning disabilities/brain damage; neglect or abuse). Therefore reductionist to consider only due to institutionalisation.
L: However, real life implications - change the policies on adoption in the UK and throughout the world, e.g. adopting before 2 years of age, as effects of privation can be reversed.

Answer 11

P: Strength – research support for the continuity hypothesis
Ev: Hazan & Shaver
Ex: Therefore, supports the view that our early childhood attachment continues into adulthood and shapes future relationships.
L: However methodological problems, as correlational – lack of causation, self-report – social desirability and retrospective – inaccurate memory recall.

P: Criticism – not all research has found the same positive correlations.
Ev: reviewed 27 samples where infants were assessed in infancy and later reassessed (1 month to 20 years later). They found correlation coefficients (0.1-0.5) between early childhood and adulthood attachments.

Ex: Therefore, does not strongly correlate with adulthood attachment. Hence, our early infancy does not determine our adulthood and future relationship success.

P/L: However, real life evidence for long term effects of early attachment that can be reversed into adulthood.
Ev: Rutter (if <6 months for adoption, low IQ and DA reversed) & Czech Twins (when adopted age 7yrs, by 20yrs = above average IQ)
Ex: Therefore, our early attachment does not determine the long term effects into adulthood, e.g. can be reversed through improved attachment figures in our lives, e.g. adoptive parents.
L: Therefore, people can change not determined to repeat failed relationships and have more divorces, as Hazan & Shaver supposed. Can learn and change