Attachment
Caregiver-infant interactions
Stages of Attachment
Role of the father
Animal Studies Lorenz
Harlow’s origins of love
Learning Theory
Bowlby's monotropic theory
Strange situation
Cultural Variations
Maternal Deprivation
Institutionalisation
Influence of early attachment on relationships
Influence of early attachment on relationships
Bowbly -Internal working model - mental representation/template of world for future relationships
Quality of first attachment crucial - good early = seek functional relationships
Affects peer relationships - insecure have difficulties (Kerns)
Wilson and Smith - attachment and bullying relationship in standard questionnaire
196 children aged 7-11 from London
Secure - uninvolved, avoidant - victims, resistant - bullies
Hazan and Shaver analysed 620 replies to ‘love quiz’ analysing romantic relationships in adulthood
3 sections American newspaper
1) current/most important relationship
2) General past experiences
3) Attachment type based on 3 statements
56% secure, 25% avoidant and 19% resistant
IWM link
Bailey - 99 mothers attachment to mothers and their babies
Mother-baby - SS
mother-mother - adult attachment interview
Majority had same classification
Interview questionnaire about childhood attachment - retrospective data, recall past events, relying on memory
(may not be accurate). Self report relying on honesty and realistic view of relationships, affects validity
Research shown instances where ppts experienced happy adult relationships despite being insecure as child.
Oppose determinism of IWM.
IWM and early attachment - try to establish correlation. Third environmental factor is mothers parenting style or
baby's temperament, no cause and effect, no IV manipulation.
McCarthy studied 40 adult women assessing childhood attachment - secure had best friendships, insecure had
problems with friendships. Support IWM. Zimmerman - little relationship. Mixed findings, not consistent.
, Institutionalisation
A01 Institutionalisation - living in an institution with little emotional care effects on attachment and development
Disinhibited attachment - equally affectionate to familiar people and strangers - unusual - 2nd year - stranger
anxiety
Rutter - living with multiple caregivers, not enough time individually for secure attachment
Romanian institutions - 50 caregivers each
Mental retardation - if adopted before 6 months, caught up with control at age 4
A01 Rutter - ERA - investigated how good care makes up poor experience - 165 Romanian adopted orphans,
assessing physical and emotional development, range of ages. Control group 52 adopted children in the UK. Age
11 - mean IQ if adopted before sensitive period was 102 with rare disinhibited, between sensitive and critical
period was 86, after critical was 77 (disinhibited attachment, attention seeking, and clinginess). 16 - differences
remained, ADHD common.
A01 Zeanah - BEIP - 95 Romanian institutionalised children vs control group 50 kids never institutionalised. SS -
carers asked about abnormalities. After sensitive period, Institutional group - 19% secure, 44% disinhibited,
Control group - 74% securely attached with 20% disinhibited attachment.
A03 More than just emotional deprivation, poor physical care. Damage only occurs with multiple risk factors. Poor
infancy care leads to poverty or parental disharmony (Turner and Lloyd) - limited validity - no cause and effect
A03Longitudinal but needs extending as some recover from effects or become negative e.g poor parenting.
Quinton - if institutionalised in youth, more likely to have kids in care - IWM. Effects long lasting
A03 RWA beneficial research - institutions avoid large numbers of carers for individuals - instead use key workers
(substitute caregivers) helping develop normal attachments. Encourage adoption before sensitive period so
normal attachment with adoptive parents (Singer et al).
A03 Methodology - Rutter didn’t randomly assign orphans to early adoption - could have been more sociable if
adopted earlier - confounding variable. BEIP did randomly assign - more internally valid, ethical issues - no
consent from children or adoptive parents, more valid
Cultural Variations
A01 Grossman and Grossman - German infants insecure avoidant
Bigger interpersonal distance so lack proximity seeking behaviours
Takashi studied 60 middle class Japanese infants and mothers - no avoidant attachment but highly resistant
attachment
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg 32 studies, 8 different countries meta analysed for 1990 children
Secure most common - 75% in Britain and 50% in China
Individualist cultures - resistant was similar to OF experiment (under 14%)
Collectivist cultures - China, Japan and Israel - resistant over 25% with reduced avoidant
Variations within the same country are 150% greater than between countries.
A03 Limitation - in an analysis by Van Ilzendoorn and Sagi, they found distributions of attachment type in Tokyo
(urban setting) were similar to Western studies, Whereas the rural sample has an over-representation of insecure
resistant individuals. Original meta-analysis is challenged as big differences are found within countries as well as
between. This is not representative of cultures and biases.
A03 Strange situation designed by an American researcher on a British theory. Anglo-American theories might
not apply to all cultures - an imposed etic. It is based on Western culture/American norms. Other cultures have
different attachments viewed as ‘normal’ behaviour and may be incorrectly classified and insecure according to
the strange situation.
A03 The meta-analysis they used contained a large sample of 2000 babies and their primary attachment figures.
This increases the external validity and reduces the impact of anomalous results. This also represents the wider
population despite it being mostly from the UK.
A03 Kagan et al suggested attachment type is more related to temperament so the strange situation may not be
measuring attachment. Instead, measuring anxiety. Therefore one cannot conclude cultural differences when
using a strange situation - lowering the internal validity.
Caregiver-infant interactions
Stages of Attachment
Role of the father
Animal Studies Lorenz
Harlow’s origins of love
Learning Theory
Bowlby's monotropic theory
Strange situation
Cultural Variations
Maternal Deprivation
Institutionalisation
Influence of early attachment on relationships
Influence of early attachment on relationships
Bowbly -Internal working model - mental representation/template of world for future relationships
Quality of first attachment crucial - good early = seek functional relationships
Affects peer relationships - insecure have difficulties (Kerns)
Wilson and Smith - attachment and bullying relationship in standard questionnaire
196 children aged 7-11 from London
Secure - uninvolved, avoidant - victims, resistant - bullies
Hazan and Shaver analysed 620 replies to ‘love quiz’ analysing romantic relationships in adulthood
3 sections American newspaper
1) current/most important relationship
2) General past experiences
3) Attachment type based on 3 statements
56% secure, 25% avoidant and 19% resistant
IWM link
Bailey - 99 mothers attachment to mothers and their babies
Mother-baby - SS
mother-mother - adult attachment interview
Majority had same classification
Interview questionnaire about childhood attachment - retrospective data, recall past events, relying on memory
(may not be accurate). Self report relying on honesty and realistic view of relationships, affects validity
Research shown instances where ppts experienced happy adult relationships despite being insecure as child.
Oppose determinism of IWM.
IWM and early attachment - try to establish correlation. Third environmental factor is mothers parenting style or
baby's temperament, no cause and effect, no IV manipulation.
McCarthy studied 40 adult women assessing childhood attachment - secure had best friendships, insecure had
problems with friendships. Support IWM. Zimmerman - little relationship. Mixed findings, not consistent.
, Institutionalisation
A01 Institutionalisation - living in an institution with little emotional care effects on attachment and development
Disinhibited attachment - equally affectionate to familiar people and strangers - unusual - 2nd year - stranger
anxiety
Rutter - living with multiple caregivers, not enough time individually for secure attachment
Romanian institutions - 50 caregivers each
Mental retardation - if adopted before 6 months, caught up with control at age 4
A01 Rutter - ERA - investigated how good care makes up poor experience - 165 Romanian adopted orphans,
assessing physical and emotional development, range of ages. Control group 52 adopted children in the UK. Age
11 - mean IQ if adopted before sensitive period was 102 with rare disinhibited, between sensitive and critical
period was 86, after critical was 77 (disinhibited attachment, attention seeking, and clinginess). 16 - differences
remained, ADHD common.
A01 Zeanah - BEIP - 95 Romanian institutionalised children vs control group 50 kids never institutionalised. SS -
carers asked about abnormalities. After sensitive period, Institutional group - 19% secure, 44% disinhibited,
Control group - 74% securely attached with 20% disinhibited attachment.
A03 More than just emotional deprivation, poor physical care. Damage only occurs with multiple risk factors. Poor
infancy care leads to poverty or parental disharmony (Turner and Lloyd) - limited validity - no cause and effect
A03Longitudinal but needs extending as some recover from effects or become negative e.g poor parenting.
Quinton - if institutionalised in youth, more likely to have kids in care - IWM. Effects long lasting
A03 RWA beneficial research - institutions avoid large numbers of carers for individuals - instead use key workers
(substitute caregivers) helping develop normal attachments. Encourage adoption before sensitive period so
normal attachment with adoptive parents (Singer et al).
A03 Methodology - Rutter didn’t randomly assign orphans to early adoption - could have been more sociable if
adopted earlier - confounding variable. BEIP did randomly assign - more internally valid, ethical issues - no
consent from children or adoptive parents, more valid
Cultural Variations
A01 Grossman and Grossman - German infants insecure avoidant
Bigger interpersonal distance so lack proximity seeking behaviours
Takashi studied 60 middle class Japanese infants and mothers - no avoidant attachment but highly resistant
attachment
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg 32 studies, 8 different countries meta analysed for 1990 children
Secure most common - 75% in Britain and 50% in China
Individualist cultures - resistant was similar to OF experiment (under 14%)
Collectivist cultures - China, Japan and Israel - resistant over 25% with reduced avoidant
Variations within the same country are 150% greater than between countries.
A03 Limitation - in an analysis by Van Ilzendoorn and Sagi, they found distributions of attachment type in Tokyo
(urban setting) were similar to Western studies, Whereas the rural sample has an over-representation of insecure
resistant individuals. Original meta-analysis is challenged as big differences are found within countries as well as
between. This is not representative of cultures and biases.
A03 Strange situation designed by an American researcher on a British theory. Anglo-American theories might
not apply to all cultures - an imposed etic. It is based on Western culture/American norms. Other cultures have
different attachments viewed as ‘normal’ behaviour and may be incorrectly classified and insecure according to
the strange situation.
A03 The meta-analysis they used contained a large sample of 2000 babies and their primary attachment figures.
This increases the external validity and reduces the impact of anomalous results. This also represents the wider
population despite it being mostly from the UK.
A03 Kagan et al suggested attachment type is more related to temperament so the strange situation may not be
measuring attachment. Instead, measuring anxiety. Therefore one cannot conclude cultural differences when
using a strange situation - lowering the internal validity.
