The 4 attachment behaviours are maintaining proximity (wanting to be physically close), separation
anxiety, joy on reunion and stranger anxiety.
Schaffer and emerson's glasgow baby study (1964) on the stages of attachment:
60 infants ( 5 - 23 weeks old) and their mothers from working class families in Glasgow were
observed at home to assess the strength of attachments by measuring their stranger and separation
anxiety every four weeks until the age of one, and then again at 18 months. A structured interview
then asked the mother rate the infant's response to situations (like being left with a sitter) on a scale of
0 (no protest) to 4 (cries loudly every time)
They found that separation anxiety forms by 6 months (showing an attachment) and then stranger
anxiety develops a month later. The primary attachment was with the person who is most responsible
for their care and this was the mother 65%, father 3% and both equally in 30% of cases. Multiple
attachments had formed by 18 months.
These findings were later described as the stages of attachment. The asocial stage (0-7 weeks) is
when babies respond similarly to people and objects but prefer face-like stimuli and recognise familiar
people via smell and voice. Indiscriminate attachment (7 weeks to 7 months) is where they prefer
people but have no anxieties yet and then specific attachment (7 months+) is where they have one
attachment to a PCG with strangers and separation anxiety. Finally multiples attachments (18 months
+) is the behaviours to several people
- High external validity (generalised to other settings) as the babies were assessed by their
parents in their natural environments. So their behaviour would've been natural and
unaffected by observers.
- Biased samples (to a specific group, place and time) lack population validity and have lower
external validity. Only 60 babies from w/c glasgow over 50 years ago but child rearing
practices vary by culture and time so we cant generalise findings.
- Problems assessing multiple attachments as distress when someone leaves the room isn't
necessarily an attachment. Eg bowlby says that distress when a playmate leaves the room
doesn't signify attachment which is a problem for the study as it's unclear how we can
distinguish between attachment and playmate behaviours.
- Problems studying the asocial stage,as many important interactions happen in these first few
weeks of life. Very young babies are fairly immobile with poor coordination so there's not
much to see to judge. Therefore they may have social feelings and cognitions but they just
can't be measured due to the flawed methods.
Role of the father:
Mothers provide emotional care (comforting), educational play, caretaking and comfort to support
social and cognitive development. Father provides physical stimulation to build confidence and risk
assessment.
- Supporting evidence. Verissimo found that the quality of a fathers attachment positively
correlated with the amount of friends a child has at pre-school. Therefore the father has a
unique influence on development
- Contrasting evidence. Mccallum and Golombok found that same sex or lone parent families
don't develop children any differently. Therefore a father figure can be substituted, the actual
father isn't important
- Issues with operationalising the role so conclusions should be read cautiously. Some
measure it as a unique secondary attachment figure but others as a PAF that could substitute
the mother. Therefore the question is complex
- Economic implications so governments/businesses should change fathers working
hours/leave. Eg the parental leave act 2015 allows both parents to share their leave, not just
2 weeks for dad. Plus if they work less hours they pay less tax so government funding for
services must increase. So the conclusions of research could lead to societal norms changing
, Dollard and miller’s cupboard love (learning theory)
An infant forms an attachment to the person who feeds them. Before conditioning an
infant has the primary drive for food (UCS) so it produces pleasure (UCR), whilst the
PAF is a neutral stimulus. They’re always present during feeding so (ns + ucs = ucr)
she is now associated with pleasure and the infant will maintain proximity with her
and develop separation anxiety. She is now a CS with the CR of pleasure.
Operant conditioning- Crying leads to a response from the carer which reinforces the
crying as the baby will likely repeat it for positive reinforcement (food) and the carer
will likely repeat it for the negative reinforcement (stopping the crying). Mutual
reinforcement then strengthens their attachment.
Sears’ Secondary drive/drive reduction- hunger is a primary drive (biological
motivator) and the caregiver is associated with this being satisfied attachment is a
secondary drive.
- Refuting evidence against food as the basis of attachment. Lorenz geese
maintained their attachment regardless of who fed them and Harlow's cloth
monkeys not wire feeding one. Schaffer and Emerson found many PAFs for
babies weren't who fed them. Contradicts learning theory (no drive or UCS)
- Ignore other factors. Interactional synchrony and reciprocity and sensitive
responsiveness. If attachment was just food, these things would be irrelevant.
- Explains some aspects like learning through association and reinforcement.
But food may not be the most important reinforcer, like parental attention and
responsiveness are in the formation of an attachment which still supports
learning theory as its an association between PCG and comfort for the
attachment. Therefore incomplete but still valuable
- Newer explanation from SLT. Hay and Vespo suggest attachment behaviours
are learnt by modelling from parents. They also get rewarded with approval
when they show these behaviours e.g. saying nice smiles. So maybe
attachment is learnt through interactions, fits research into IS and reciprocity.
Interactional synchrony- parents and babies movements become finely synchronised so
they mirror each other as infants imitate facial expressions, emotions and hand gestures.
Leads to the development of self regulation, empathy and symbol use.
Reciprocity- babies coordinate their behaviours with caregivers' to move in rhythm like
they're taking turns in a conversation. Allows parents to anticipate and respond to needs.
These innate behaviours reinforce the attachment by trying to sustain communication.
- Evidence for reciprocity from Papousek who found that Chinese, American and
German parents all use a rising tone (caregiverese) to show a baby it's their turn in a
conversation. Cross cultural so shared timing is innate for attachments
- Evidence for IS from isabella et al who observed 30 mothers and their babies to see
the degree of their synchrony and the quality of their attachment. They found high
levels of synchrony were associated with better quality attachments
- Socially sensitive as it suggests that some children are disadvantaged by their
childrearing practises like mothers returning to work quickly restricting their IS
opportunities which isabella et al found to negatively affect attachment. Suggesting
mothers not returning to work quickly has socially sensitive implications
- Well controlled procedures, interactions are usually filmed from multiple angles so
fine details can be analysed and babies don't know they're being observed so act
naturally. So studies are high in validity
anxiety, joy on reunion and stranger anxiety.
Schaffer and emerson's glasgow baby study (1964) on the stages of attachment:
60 infants ( 5 - 23 weeks old) and their mothers from working class families in Glasgow were
observed at home to assess the strength of attachments by measuring their stranger and separation
anxiety every four weeks until the age of one, and then again at 18 months. A structured interview
then asked the mother rate the infant's response to situations (like being left with a sitter) on a scale of
0 (no protest) to 4 (cries loudly every time)
They found that separation anxiety forms by 6 months (showing an attachment) and then stranger
anxiety develops a month later. The primary attachment was with the person who is most responsible
for their care and this was the mother 65%, father 3% and both equally in 30% of cases. Multiple
attachments had formed by 18 months.
These findings were later described as the stages of attachment. The asocial stage (0-7 weeks) is
when babies respond similarly to people and objects but prefer face-like stimuli and recognise familiar
people via smell and voice. Indiscriminate attachment (7 weeks to 7 months) is where they prefer
people but have no anxieties yet and then specific attachment (7 months+) is where they have one
attachment to a PCG with strangers and separation anxiety. Finally multiples attachments (18 months
+) is the behaviours to several people
- High external validity (generalised to other settings) as the babies were assessed by their
parents in their natural environments. So their behaviour would've been natural and
unaffected by observers.
- Biased samples (to a specific group, place and time) lack population validity and have lower
external validity. Only 60 babies from w/c glasgow over 50 years ago but child rearing
practices vary by culture and time so we cant generalise findings.
- Problems assessing multiple attachments as distress when someone leaves the room isn't
necessarily an attachment. Eg bowlby says that distress when a playmate leaves the room
doesn't signify attachment which is a problem for the study as it's unclear how we can
distinguish between attachment and playmate behaviours.
- Problems studying the asocial stage,as many important interactions happen in these first few
weeks of life. Very young babies are fairly immobile with poor coordination so there's not
much to see to judge. Therefore they may have social feelings and cognitions but they just
can't be measured due to the flawed methods.
Role of the father:
Mothers provide emotional care (comforting), educational play, caretaking and comfort to support
social and cognitive development. Father provides physical stimulation to build confidence and risk
assessment.
- Supporting evidence. Verissimo found that the quality of a fathers attachment positively
correlated with the amount of friends a child has at pre-school. Therefore the father has a
unique influence on development
- Contrasting evidence. Mccallum and Golombok found that same sex or lone parent families
don't develop children any differently. Therefore a father figure can be substituted, the actual
father isn't important
- Issues with operationalising the role so conclusions should be read cautiously. Some
measure it as a unique secondary attachment figure but others as a PAF that could substitute
the mother. Therefore the question is complex
- Economic implications so governments/businesses should change fathers working
hours/leave. Eg the parental leave act 2015 allows both parents to share their leave, not just
2 weeks for dad. Plus if they work less hours they pay less tax so government funding for
services must increase. So the conclusions of research could lead to societal norms changing
, Dollard and miller’s cupboard love (learning theory)
An infant forms an attachment to the person who feeds them. Before conditioning an
infant has the primary drive for food (UCS) so it produces pleasure (UCR), whilst the
PAF is a neutral stimulus. They’re always present during feeding so (ns + ucs = ucr)
she is now associated with pleasure and the infant will maintain proximity with her
and develop separation anxiety. She is now a CS with the CR of pleasure.
Operant conditioning- Crying leads to a response from the carer which reinforces the
crying as the baby will likely repeat it for positive reinforcement (food) and the carer
will likely repeat it for the negative reinforcement (stopping the crying). Mutual
reinforcement then strengthens their attachment.
Sears’ Secondary drive/drive reduction- hunger is a primary drive (biological
motivator) and the caregiver is associated with this being satisfied attachment is a
secondary drive.
- Refuting evidence against food as the basis of attachment. Lorenz geese
maintained their attachment regardless of who fed them and Harlow's cloth
monkeys not wire feeding one. Schaffer and Emerson found many PAFs for
babies weren't who fed them. Contradicts learning theory (no drive or UCS)
- Ignore other factors. Interactional synchrony and reciprocity and sensitive
responsiveness. If attachment was just food, these things would be irrelevant.
- Explains some aspects like learning through association and reinforcement.
But food may not be the most important reinforcer, like parental attention and
responsiveness are in the formation of an attachment which still supports
learning theory as its an association between PCG and comfort for the
attachment. Therefore incomplete but still valuable
- Newer explanation from SLT. Hay and Vespo suggest attachment behaviours
are learnt by modelling from parents. They also get rewarded with approval
when they show these behaviours e.g. saying nice smiles. So maybe
attachment is learnt through interactions, fits research into IS and reciprocity.
Interactional synchrony- parents and babies movements become finely synchronised so
they mirror each other as infants imitate facial expressions, emotions and hand gestures.
Leads to the development of self regulation, empathy and symbol use.
Reciprocity- babies coordinate their behaviours with caregivers' to move in rhythm like
they're taking turns in a conversation. Allows parents to anticipate and respond to needs.
These innate behaviours reinforce the attachment by trying to sustain communication.
- Evidence for reciprocity from Papousek who found that Chinese, American and
German parents all use a rising tone (caregiverese) to show a baby it's their turn in a
conversation. Cross cultural so shared timing is innate for attachments
- Evidence for IS from isabella et al who observed 30 mothers and their babies to see
the degree of their synchrony and the quality of their attachment. They found high
levels of synchrony were associated with better quality attachments
- Socially sensitive as it suggests that some children are disadvantaged by their
childrearing practises like mothers returning to work quickly restricting their IS
opportunities which isabella et al found to negatively affect attachment. Suggesting
mothers not returning to work quickly has socially sensitive implications
- Well controlled procedures, interactions are usually filmed from multiple angles so
fine details can be analysed and babies don't know they're being observed so act
naturally. So studies are high in validity
