TITLE:Schaffer stages of attachment
AO1:Schaffer and Emerson (1964) conducted a longitudinal study on 60 Glaswegian infants to investigate the
development of attachment. From their observations, they identified four distinct stages of attachment that occur in a
fixed sequence in all infants.
Asocial Stage (0–6 weeks):
In this early stage, infants show similar responses to humans and inanimate objects, hence the term ‘asocial’.
However, they do start to show preference for familiar adults, and are more easily comforted by them, suggesting early
signs of forming bonds.
Indiscriminate Attachment (2–7 months):
Infants begin to display more social behaviours, preferring humans over objects and recognising familiar people.
However, attachments are not yet specific, as they accept comfort from any adult and show no stranger or separation
anxiety.
Specific Attachment (from around 7 months):
Most infants form a primary attachment to the person who responds most sensitively to their needs—typically the
mother (65% of cases). Signs include separation anxiety when apart from the primary figure and stranger anxiety
when approached by unfamiliar people.
Multiple Attachments (from 9 months onwards):
After forming a primary attachment, babies begin to form secondary attachments to other familiar adults such as the
father, grandparents, or siblings. Schaffer and Emerson found that 29% of infants had formed secondary attachments
within a month of forming a primary one, and by the age of one, most had multiple attachments.
AO3
Strength AO3- strength-Good external validity
Point: One strength of Schaffer and Emerson’s research is its high AO3-weakness- Poor evidence for the asocial stage
external validity. Point A key limitation is that the method used to measure
Explain: Most observations (except those assessing stranger anxiety) attachment in the asocial stage may lack validity.
were conducted by parents during everyday activities in the child’s Explain: Newborns are relatively inactive and express themselves
natural environment. This approach avoided the artificiality of subtly. This makes it hard for caregivers to detect meaningful social
lab-based observation, where the presence of researchers might have behaviours, especially when relying on observation alone.
caused demand characteristics or anxiety in the infant. Link: This suggests the findings for this stage may suffer from
Link: This suggests that the babies’ behaviour was likely to be natural methodological issues, meaning we might be underestimating how
and unaffected by observation, increasing the ecological validity of the social very young babies actually are. The theory, therefore, risks being
findings and supporting the authenticity of Schaffer and Emerson’s an incomplete explanation of early attachment.
conclusions about how attachments form in real-life contexts.
Counterpoint: However, the reliance on parental
observation raises concerns about objectivity. AO3-strength- Real-world application-day care
Explain: Parents may have misinterpreted or failed to Point: Another strength is that Schaffer and
notice subtlesigns of attachment behaviours such as Emerson’s stages have clear practical applications in
anxiety or comfort-seeking. Memory distortions or childcare.
personal bias could also affect the accuracy of their Explain: Understanding when babies are most
reports. vulnerable to separation and stranger anxiety helps
Link: Therefore, although infants behaved naturally, the parents plan suitable times for day care. Early stages
data collected may lack internal validity, meaning
like asocial and indiscriminate are ideal for smooth
conclusions about the timing or presence of certain
stages—especially early ones—might not be entirely transitions.
reliable. Link: This real-world value increases the theory’s
practical usefulness, showing how developmental
psychology can inform decisions in parenting and
early education
, TITLE: Bowlby's monotropic theory
AO1: 1. Bowlby proposed that infants are born with an innate drive to form attachments, an evolutionary
mechanism enhancing survival by ensuring proximity to a caregiver for protection and care.
2. He emphasized that infants form one primary attachment, termed monotropy, typically with the mother. This bond
is more significant than others and serves as the foundation for the child's emotional development.
3. Bowlby identified a critical period for attachment formation, between approximately 6 months of age extending to
age of 2 (sensitive period). Failing to establish an attachment during this window could lead to long-term social,
emotional, and cognitive difficulties. 4. He introduced the concept of social releasers—innate infant behaviors like
smiling and crying—that trigger caregiving responses from adults, facilitating the formation of attachments.
5. Bowlby proposed that the primary attachment relationship forms an internal working model—a mental
representation guiding future relationships.
6. A secure early attachment leads to expectations of reliable and loving interactions in later life. He suggested that
early attachment experiences influence later emotional and social development. A secure attachment in infancy is
associated with healthier relationships in adulthood.
AO3
AO3 Weakness – Validity of monotropy challenged
Point: One limitation of Bowlby’s theory is that the concept of AO3 Strength – Support for social releasers
monotropy lacks validity. Point: One strength of Bowlby’s theory is the supporting evidence
Evidence: Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that while most for the role of social releasers in attachment.
infants did initially attach to one caregiver, a significant minority Evidence: Brazelton et al. (1975) observed that babies use
behaviours like smiling or crying to prompt interaction. When
formed multiple attachments simultaneously.
caregivers were told to ignore these social releasers, babies became
Explain: This suggests that although one attachment may be visibly distressed, with some even becoming motionless.
stronger, it is not necessarily unique in quality. Other Explain: This shows that social releasers are biologically
attachments, like those to fathers, siblings, or grandparents, programmed cues essential for triggering caregiving responses.
can also provide emotional security and a safe base. Link: This supports the theory’s explanatory power by showing how
Link: This challenges Bowlby’s claim of a unique and innate behaviours contribute to emotional bonding, strengthening
qualitatively different bond with the primary attachment figure, Bowlby’s claim of an evolutionary function in attachment.
making his theory a less complete explanation of early
attachment behaviour.
AO3 Strength – Support for the internal working :Counterpoint: However, there are likely other important
model influences on attachment besides early relationships.
Point: A further strength of Bowlby’s theory is empirical Evidence: For example, Kornienko (2016) suggests that
support for the internal working model. genetic differences in sociability and anxiety may
Evidence: Bailey et al. (2007) studied 99 mothers and impact attachment and parenting.
their babies, finding that those with poor attachments to Explain: This introduces a biological alternative
their own parents were more likely to have insecurely explanation for why some people find it harder to form
attached infants. secure attachments.
Explain: This suggests that internal working models of Link: This weakens the theory’s explanatory power, as
attachment are passed through generations, as Bowlby it may overemphasise learned attachment patterns while
predicted.
Link: ✅
This increases the theory’s predictive validity,
showing it can accurately explain how early attachment
overlooking innate individual differences.
experiences shape future social and emotional
development.
AO1:Schaffer and Emerson (1964) conducted a longitudinal study on 60 Glaswegian infants to investigate the
development of attachment. From their observations, they identified four distinct stages of attachment that occur in a
fixed sequence in all infants.
Asocial Stage (0–6 weeks):
In this early stage, infants show similar responses to humans and inanimate objects, hence the term ‘asocial’.
However, they do start to show preference for familiar adults, and are more easily comforted by them, suggesting early
signs of forming bonds.
Indiscriminate Attachment (2–7 months):
Infants begin to display more social behaviours, preferring humans over objects and recognising familiar people.
However, attachments are not yet specific, as they accept comfort from any adult and show no stranger or separation
anxiety.
Specific Attachment (from around 7 months):
Most infants form a primary attachment to the person who responds most sensitively to their needs—typically the
mother (65% of cases). Signs include separation anxiety when apart from the primary figure and stranger anxiety
when approached by unfamiliar people.
Multiple Attachments (from 9 months onwards):
After forming a primary attachment, babies begin to form secondary attachments to other familiar adults such as the
father, grandparents, or siblings. Schaffer and Emerson found that 29% of infants had formed secondary attachments
within a month of forming a primary one, and by the age of one, most had multiple attachments.
AO3
Strength AO3- strength-Good external validity
Point: One strength of Schaffer and Emerson’s research is its high AO3-weakness- Poor evidence for the asocial stage
external validity. Point A key limitation is that the method used to measure
Explain: Most observations (except those assessing stranger anxiety) attachment in the asocial stage may lack validity.
were conducted by parents during everyday activities in the child’s Explain: Newborns are relatively inactive and express themselves
natural environment. This approach avoided the artificiality of subtly. This makes it hard for caregivers to detect meaningful social
lab-based observation, where the presence of researchers might have behaviours, especially when relying on observation alone.
caused demand characteristics or anxiety in the infant. Link: This suggests the findings for this stage may suffer from
Link: This suggests that the babies’ behaviour was likely to be natural methodological issues, meaning we might be underestimating how
and unaffected by observation, increasing the ecological validity of the social very young babies actually are. The theory, therefore, risks being
findings and supporting the authenticity of Schaffer and Emerson’s an incomplete explanation of early attachment.
conclusions about how attachments form in real-life contexts.
Counterpoint: However, the reliance on parental
observation raises concerns about objectivity. AO3-strength- Real-world application-day care
Explain: Parents may have misinterpreted or failed to Point: Another strength is that Schaffer and
notice subtlesigns of attachment behaviours such as Emerson’s stages have clear practical applications in
anxiety or comfort-seeking. Memory distortions or childcare.
personal bias could also affect the accuracy of their Explain: Understanding when babies are most
reports. vulnerable to separation and stranger anxiety helps
Link: Therefore, although infants behaved naturally, the parents plan suitable times for day care. Early stages
data collected may lack internal validity, meaning
like asocial and indiscriminate are ideal for smooth
conclusions about the timing or presence of certain
stages—especially early ones—might not be entirely transitions.
reliable. Link: This real-world value increases the theory’s
practical usefulness, showing how developmental
psychology can inform decisions in parenting and
early education
, TITLE: Bowlby's monotropic theory
AO1: 1. Bowlby proposed that infants are born with an innate drive to form attachments, an evolutionary
mechanism enhancing survival by ensuring proximity to a caregiver for protection and care.
2. He emphasized that infants form one primary attachment, termed monotropy, typically with the mother. This bond
is more significant than others and serves as the foundation for the child's emotional development.
3. Bowlby identified a critical period for attachment formation, between approximately 6 months of age extending to
age of 2 (sensitive period). Failing to establish an attachment during this window could lead to long-term social,
emotional, and cognitive difficulties. 4. He introduced the concept of social releasers—innate infant behaviors like
smiling and crying—that trigger caregiving responses from adults, facilitating the formation of attachments.
5. Bowlby proposed that the primary attachment relationship forms an internal working model—a mental
representation guiding future relationships.
6. A secure early attachment leads to expectations of reliable and loving interactions in later life. He suggested that
early attachment experiences influence later emotional and social development. A secure attachment in infancy is
associated with healthier relationships in adulthood.
AO3
AO3 Weakness – Validity of monotropy challenged
Point: One limitation of Bowlby’s theory is that the concept of AO3 Strength – Support for social releasers
monotropy lacks validity. Point: One strength of Bowlby’s theory is the supporting evidence
Evidence: Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that while most for the role of social releasers in attachment.
infants did initially attach to one caregiver, a significant minority Evidence: Brazelton et al. (1975) observed that babies use
behaviours like smiling or crying to prompt interaction. When
formed multiple attachments simultaneously.
caregivers were told to ignore these social releasers, babies became
Explain: This suggests that although one attachment may be visibly distressed, with some even becoming motionless.
stronger, it is not necessarily unique in quality. Other Explain: This shows that social releasers are biologically
attachments, like those to fathers, siblings, or grandparents, programmed cues essential for triggering caregiving responses.
can also provide emotional security and a safe base. Link: This supports the theory’s explanatory power by showing how
Link: This challenges Bowlby’s claim of a unique and innate behaviours contribute to emotional bonding, strengthening
qualitatively different bond with the primary attachment figure, Bowlby’s claim of an evolutionary function in attachment.
making his theory a less complete explanation of early
attachment behaviour.
AO3 Strength – Support for the internal working :Counterpoint: However, there are likely other important
model influences on attachment besides early relationships.
Point: A further strength of Bowlby’s theory is empirical Evidence: For example, Kornienko (2016) suggests that
support for the internal working model. genetic differences in sociability and anxiety may
Evidence: Bailey et al. (2007) studied 99 mothers and impact attachment and parenting.
their babies, finding that those with poor attachments to Explain: This introduces a biological alternative
their own parents were more likely to have insecurely explanation for why some people find it harder to form
attached infants. secure attachments.
Explain: This suggests that internal working models of Link: This weakens the theory’s explanatory power, as
attachment are passed through generations, as Bowlby it may overemphasise learned attachment patterns while
predicted.
Link: ✅
This increases the theory’s predictive validity,
showing it can accurately explain how early attachment
overlooking innate individual differences.
experiences shape future social and emotional
development.
