CHILD PSYCHOLOGY
Bowlby’s Work on Attachment
AO1: proposed that attachment behaviours are biologically programmed to ensure survival.
Infants are born with “social releasers’’ (smiling, cooing, crying) that elicit caregiving
responses from adults. MONOTRPOY: infants form 1 primaru attachment usually with mum,
or a consistent caregiver which their bond influences later relationships and development.
CRITICAL PERIOD: attachment must occur within 0-2.5yrs (specific timeframe) and if not,
could lead to long term social and emotional drifts. INTERNAL WORKING MODEL: suggests
early attachment and experiences forms a template for future relationships and secure
attachment = +ve expectations, -ve= negative. MATERNAL DEPRIVATION HYPOTHESIS:
prolonged separation from mum during critical period= emotional decline, delinquency and
affectionless psychopathy → 44 Juveniles study showed it was linked.
AO3:Strength: Harlow’s Monkey experiment (1969) showed importance of a caregiver’s emotional
responsiveness, aligns with Bowlby’s emphasis on attachment over food. 44 Juvenile Thieves’ study.
However, weakness: correlation doesnt equal causation as 44 thieves study doesn’t prove that
separation caused antisocial behaviour (eg. family stability may contribute)
Ainsworth’s Work on Attachment
AO1: Strange Situation Procedure: structured observation in a new room marked into 16 squares to
record babies movements. Data collected from video, 2 way mirror, notes on baby every 15s
(timesampling), categories and intensity (1-7 rank). There are 8 episodes with each designed to assess
different behaviours (note blue=episode ; purple=behaviour assessed)
1) Mother and baby plays in new room (nothing is assessed)
2) Parent sits whilst baby plays and explores room (use of parent as safe base)
3) Stranger enters and talks to parent and tries to interact with child through play (stranger anxiety)
4) Parent leaves room, child and stranger is in room 2gether, stranger offers comfort if needed
(separation anxiety)
5) Parent returns, after short period-varies on child’s distress-offers comfort and stranger leaves
(reunion behaviour)
6) Parent leaves too, so infant all alone (separation anxiety)
7) Stranger enters and offers comfort if needed (stranger anxiety)
8) Parent returns to console child and stranger leaves room (reunion behaviour)
Found that 65%=secure (type B) → willing to explore room and come back to parent (safe
base), high stranger anxiety, some separation anxiety, enthusiatic reunion behaviour; 23%
anxious-avoidant (type A)→ high willing to explore, low stranger anxiety, indifferent
separatin anx but avoids eye contact in reunion behaviour; 12% anxious-resistant (type C)
→ low willing to explore, high stranger anx, seeks comfort from stranger, rejects own parent
comfort.
AO3:Strength: structured= high standardised and conducted in controlled environment, so behaviour of
kids can be recorded and reviewed by many observers to make iter-rater reliability
However, weakness: may not be useful to measure attachment in kids used to separating low eco validity
and low ethical grounds (kids could be distressed from stranger and patient leaving); Kagan’s
temperment hupothesis criticeses the association made between sensitive, responsive mothering and
attachment type arguing that the child’s response in strange situation is bc their temperament
(personality) rather than attachment type developed through internalising with mother. Eg avoidant kids
could also be fearless and independent than attachment.
, Application: can be used in daycares to understand attachments between different children and explain
resopnses
Cross-Cultural Research into Attachment
AO1: Secure attachment is consistently found to be the most common attachment type across cultures,
making it the universal norm. However, there are cultural differences in the prevalence of other
attachment styles. In Japan, where Miyake et al (1985) and Takahasi (1986) found 32% anxious-resistant
vs USA (12%). Could be assumed that Japanese mothers are inconsistentently emotionally available
BUT kids are taught to stay close to mother, so they would be more distressed during separation. In
Germany, Grossman et al found 49% anxious-avoidant vs USA (23%). Could be assumed that German
mothers are consistently emotionally unavailable BUT actually reflects the early independence taught,
which would be mistaken for avoidant behaviour in SSP.
AO3:Strength: Bc SSP is highly standardied, it is very easy to replicate procedure in other countries,
without having to change anything to suit to other cultures.
However, weakness: is that USING Ainsworth’s findings as ‘the norm’ and making all comparisons based
on USA’s SSP findings is ethnocentric. This can lead to harmful assumptions towards other cultures.
Classic study: Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg (1988)
AO1: AIM: To investigate if attachment types are universal across cultures or culturally specific
PROCEDURE: meta-analysis, 32 studies across 8 countries, 1990 baby+mum pairs used, kids up to
24mnths old, all studies used SSP to look for similarities and differences in attachment types.
FINDINGS: secure attachment found most common across all 8 countries, individualistic countries= high
proportion of anxious-avoidant attachment (maybe bc they value independence so kids less stressed in
SSP, eg. Germany); collectivistic= high proper. anxious-resistant (maybe bc high value of dependency in
culture, so kids more stressed in SSP in absence of mother, eg. Japan)
CONCLUSION: Universal consistency of secure attachment maybe bc mass media effects (Western
media spread ideas on parenting through TV so all countries parent bc of US)**. Signif variation in
attachment bc of child-rearing practices differs between cultures (bc prior education or cultural factors).
AO3:Strength: High ethics → Meta analysis= no P interaction (so no deception, no need to
gain informed consent). 2ndary data= large amount of info quickly= more valid conclusions.
However, weakness: **Highly ethnocentric→ assuming that other countries got their behaviour
from the West= assumption that they’re the standard and superior and judges other
cultures through a western lens. 2ndary data= low reliability +validity bc unknown how og
study was.
Short-Term Effects of Deprivation
AO1: As said by Robertson, 1953:
1) PROTEST: This stage Last several hours todays where children show great distress, calling and
crying for their absent caregiver. may actively refuse Comfort or display exaggerated clinging to an
adult.
2) DESPAIR: Overtime children no longer anticipates the return or fair mother and becomes
increasingly hopeless, unenthusciastic and demonstrates morning. The child self-soothes and
becomes calmer.
3) DETACHMENT: When will appear to cope with separation as they show more interest in their
surroundings. Upon their caregiver’s return, they are emotionally unresponsive and appear
indifferent. However, most children will re-establish their relationship over time.
AO3:Strength: supported by Robertson and Robertson (1971): 17mnth old John was pleased in a
residential nursery for 9 days whilst mum was in hospital. Initially, John sobbed and seeked comfort from
staff members (protest-1), eventually then played with his teddy (2-despair), and did not look at mother
Bowlby’s Work on Attachment
AO1: proposed that attachment behaviours are biologically programmed to ensure survival.
Infants are born with “social releasers’’ (smiling, cooing, crying) that elicit caregiving
responses from adults. MONOTRPOY: infants form 1 primaru attachment usually with mum,
or a consistent caregiver which their bond influences later relationships and development.
CRITICAL PERIOD: attachment must occur within 0-2.5yrs (specific timeframe) and if not,
could lead to long term social and emotional drifts. INTERNAL WORKING MODEL: suggests
early attachment and experiences forms a template for future relationships and secure
attachment = +ve expectations, -ve= negative. MATERNAL DEPRIVATION HYPOTHESIS:
prolonged separation from mum during critical period= emotional decline, delinquency and
affectionless psychopathy → 44 Juveniles study showed it was linked.
AO3:Strength: Harlow’s Monkey experiment (1969) showed importance of a caregiver’s emotional
responsiveness, aligns with Bowlby’s emphasis on attachment over food. 44 Juvenile Thieves’ study.
However, weakness: correlation doesnt equal causation as 44 thieves study doesn’t prove that
separation caused antisocial behaviour (eg. family stability may contribute)
Ainsworth’s Work on Attachment
AO1: Strange Situation Procedure: structured observation in a new room marked into 16 squares to
record babies movements. Data collected from video, 2 way mirror, notes on baby every 15s
(timesampling), categories and intensity (1-7 rank). There are 8 episodes with each designed to assess
different behaviours (note blue=episode ; purple=behaviour assessed)
1) Mother and baby plays in new room (nothing is assessed)
2) Parent sits whilst baby plays and explores room (use of parent as safe base)
3) Stranger enters and talks to parent and tries to interact with child through play (stranger anxiety)
4) Parent leaves room, child and stranger is in room 2gether, stranger offers comfort if needed
(separation anxiety)
5) Parent returns, after short period-varies on child’s distress-offers comfort and stranger leaves
(reunion behaviour)
6) Parent leaves too, so infant all alone (separation anxiety)
7) Stranger enters and offers comfort if needed (stranger anxiety)
8) Parent returns to console child and stranger leaves room (reunion behaviour)
Found that 65%=secure (type B) → willing to explore room and come back to parent (safe
base), high stranger anxiety, some separation anxiety, enthusiatic reunion behaviour; 23%
anxious-avoidant (type A)→ high willing to explore, low stranger anxiety, indifferent
separatin anx but avoids eye contact in reunion behaviour; 12% anxious-resistant (type C)
→ low willing to explore, high stranger anx, seeks comfort from stranger, rejects own parent
comfort.
AO3:Strength: structured= high standardised and conducted in controlled environment, so behaviour of
kids can be recorded and reviewed by many observers to make iter-rater reliability
However, weakness: may not be useful to measure attachment in kids used to separating low eco validity
and low ethical grounds (kids could be distressed from stranger and patient leaving); Kagan’s
temperment hupothesis criticeses the association made between sensitive, responsive mothering and
attachment type arguing that the child’s response in strange situation is bc their temperament
(personality) rather than attachment type developed through internalising with mother. Eg avoidant kids
could also be fearless and independent than attachment.
, Application: can be used in daycares to understand attachments between different children and explain
resopnses
Cross-Cultural Research into Attachment
AO1: Secure attachment is consistently found to be the most common attachment type across cultures,
making it the universal norm. However, there are cultural differences in the prevalence of other
attachment styles. In Japan, where Miyake et al (1985) and Takahasi (1986) found 32% anxious-resistant
vs USA (12%). Could be assumed that Japanese mothers are inconsistentently emotionally available
BUT kids are taught to stay close to mother, so they would be more distressed during separation. In
Germany, Grossman et al found 49% anxious-avoidant vs USA (23%). Could be assumed that German
mothers are consistently emotionally unavailable BUT actually reflects the early independence taught,
which would be mistaken for avoidant behaviour in SSP.
AO3:Strength: Bc SSP is highly standardied, it is very easy to replicate procedure in other countries,
without having to change anything to suit to other cultures.
However, weakness: is that USING Ainsworth’s findings as ‘the norm’ and making all comparisons based
on USA’s SSP findings is ethnocentric. This can lead to harmful assumptions towards other cultures.
Classic study: Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg (1988)
AO1: AIM: To investigate if attachment types are universal across cultures or culturally specific
PROCEDURE: meta-analysis, 32 studies across 8 countries, 1990 baby+mum pairs used, kids up to
24mnths old, all studies used SSP to look for similarities and differences in attachment types.
FINDINGS: secure attachment found most common across all 8 countries, individualistic countries= high
proportion of anxious-avoidant attachment (maybe bc they value independence so kids less stressed in
SSP, eg. Germany); collectivistic= high proper. anxious-resistant (maybe bc high value of dependency in
culture, so kids more stressed in SSP in absence of mother, eg. Japan)
CONCLUSION: Universal consistency of secure attachment maybe bc mass media effects (Western
media spread ideas on parenting through TV so all countries parent bc of US)**. Signif variation in
attachment bc of child-rearing practices differs between cultures (bc prior education or cultural factors).
AO3:Strength: High ethics → Meta analysis= no P interaction (so no deception, no need to
gain informed consent). 2ndary data= large amount of info quickly= more valid conclusions.
However, weakness: **Highly ethnocentric→ assuming that other countries got their behaviour
from the West= assumption that they’re the standard and superior and judges other
cultures through a western lens. 2ndary data= low reliability +validity bc unknown how og
study was.
Short-Term Effects of Deprivation
AO1: As said by Robertson, 1953:
1) PROTEST: This stage Last several hours todays where children show great distress, calling and
crying for their absent caregiver. may actively refuse Comfort or display exaggerated clinging to an
adult.
2) DESPAIR: Overtime children no longer anticipates the return or fair mother and becomes
increasingly hopeless, unenthusciastic and demonstrates morning. The child self-soothes and
becomes calmer.
3) DETACHMENT: When will appear to cope with separation as they show more interest in their
surroundings. Upon their caregiver’s return, they are emotionally unresponsive and appear
indifferent. However, most children will re-establish their relationship over time.
AO3:Strength: supported by Robertson and Robertson (1971): 17mnth old John was pleased in a
residential nursery for 9 days whilst mum was in hospital. Initially, John sobbed and seeked comfort from
staff members (protest-1), eventually then played with his teddy (2-despair), and did not look at mother
