Attachment: A-Level Psychology Notes

Attachment can be defined as an emotional bond between two people in which each seeks closeness and feels more secure when in the presence of the attachment figure.

Animal Studies of Attachment

Animal studies of attachment: Lorenz and Harlow.

Lorenz

Konrad Lorenz, a prominent ethologist, is famous for his research on imprinting in birds, particularly geese.

Procedure:

Lorenz observed the phenomenon of imprinting when he was a child and a duckling followed him around.

To study this systematically, Lorenz conducted a classic experiment in which he randomly divided a clutch of greylag goose eggs into two groups:

• One half was left to hatch naturally with the mother goose (the control group).
• The other half was hatched in an incubator, and the first moving thing these goslings saw upon hatching was Lorenz himself.
• After hatching, Lorenz marked the goslings to identify their group and then released them together from an upturned box to observe who or what they followed.
• He also varied the time between birth and the goslings seeing a moving object to measure the “critical period” for imprinting.

Findings:

• The control group goslings followed their biological mother everywhere.
• The group hatched in the incubator followed Lorenz, and this behaviour proved to be irreversible; these goslings showed no recognition of their real mother.
• Lorenz found that imprinting, an instinctive process where the newborn forms an attachment to the first moving object they see, occurred very swiftly after birth, roughly between 6 and 17 hours. If the goslings did not imprint within approximately 30-32 hours, they lost the ability to imprint at all, defining a strict “critical period”.
• Lorenz also observed “sexual imprinting,” where goslings imprinted on inanimate objects (like Wellington boots) later displayed sexual behaviours towards these objects.

Harlow

Harry Harlow’s research with rhesus monkeys aimed to understand the mechanisms by which newborn monkeys bond with their mothers, specifically challenging the “cupboard love” theory that attachment is based solely on food.

Procedure:

• In his famous “contact comfort” study (1958), Harlow separated 16 rhesus monkeys from their mothers immediately after birth.
• He placed them in cages with access to two “surrogate mothers”:
  • One was made of plain wire and dispensed milk.
  • The other was covered in soft terry towelling cloth but did not provide food.
• Harlow recorded the amount of time the monkeys spent with each surrogate mother.
• He also observed their behaviour when a frightening object was placed in the cage to see which mother they would seek refuge with.

Findings:

• Both groups of monkeys overwhelmingly spent more time with the cloth mother, even if the wire mother was the one providing milk. They would only go to the wire mother when hungry, immediately returning to the cloth mother once fed.
• When a frightening object was introduced, the infant monkeys took refuge with the cloth mother, demonstrating that “contact comfort” was more important than food for attachment.
• Harlow also observed the long-term effects on the monkeys reared with surrogates: they were much more timid, aggressive with other monkeys, had difficulty mating, and, if female, became “inadequate” mothers, some even killing their offspring.
• These negative effects could be reversed if the monkeys were exposed to a normal environment and allowed to form attachments within the first 90 days of life, suggesting a critical period for attachment formation in monkeys. Beyond this period, the effects were irreversible.

What These Studies Tell Us About Attachment

Both Lorenz’s and Harlow’s animal studies provided crucial insights into attachment, influencing later theories like Bowlby’s monotropic theory.

• Innate Basis of Attachment: Lorenz’s work suggested that attachment (imprinting) is an instinctive, evolutionary behaviour that helps ensure survival, as young animals are “pre-programmed” to form bonds for protection.
• Importance of Contact Comfort: Harlow’s research strongly challenged the behaviourist “cupboard love” theory by demonstrating that physical comfort and emotional security are more vital for attachment formation than the provision of food. This suggests that attachment is not merely a learned response to feeding.
• Critical/Sensitive Periods: Both studies highlighted the concept of a critical period during which attachment must form to avoid severe, long-lasting negative consequences. Bowlby later applied this idea to humans, though research with human orphans suggests it might be more of a “sensitive period” where recovery is still possible with appropriate intervention, even after this initial window.
• Long-term Effects of Early Deprivation: Harlow’s findings on the severe social and emotional deficits in motherless monkeys, including their inability to form positive relationships or parent their own offspring, underscored the importance of early attachment experiences for later social development. This aligns with Bowlby’s concept of an “internal working model,” where early attachment forms a template for future relationships.

Evaluation of Animal Studies in Attachment

While these studies provided groundbreaking insights, they also face criticisms:

• Generalisability to Humans: A major limitation is the extent to which findings from animal studies can be directly generalised to human attachment. Human attachment is far more complex, involving conscious thought, language, and intricate social and cultural factors that are not present in animals. For example, the very short and rigid critical period observed in geese is unlikely to apply directly to human development, which is much longer and more nuanced. However, some argue that Harlow’s work with mammals (rhesus monkeys) is more relevant to humans than Lorenz’s work with birds.
• Ethical Concerns: Harlow’s experiments, in particular, are highly criticized for causing significant and lasting psychological harm to the monkeys, including isolation, distress, and long-term behavioural problems. Such studies raise serious ethical questions about inflicting suffering on animals for research purposes.
• Practical Applications: Despite the ethical concerns, the findings from these studies have had important practical applications. They influenced our understanding of the critical importance of emotional care and early bonding, leading to improvements in childcare practices in hospitals, orphanages, and adoption agencies.

Explanations of Attachment

Explanations of attachment: learning theory and Bowlby’s monotropic theory. The concepts of a critical period and an internal working model.

Attachment is defined as a strong reciprocal emotional bond between an infant and a primary caregiver, where each seeks closeness and feels more secure in the presence of the other.

Psychologists are interested in understanding how and why these bonds form. Two prominent explanations are the learning theory and Bowlby’s monotropic theory.

Learning Theory

AO1

The learning theory of attachment is a nurture theory, proposing that all behaviour, including attachment, is learned rather than being an innate biological process.

It views children as being born as “blank slates” (tabula rasa), meaning their minds are devoid of content until experiences shape them.

This approach is often referred to as cupboard love because it emphasizes that children learn to become attached to their caregiver primarily due to the provision of food.

Classical Conditioning (Learning by Association):

This process suggests that infants learn to associate their caregiver with the pleasure of being fed.

• Initially, food (Unconditioned Stimulus, UCS) naturally produces pleasure/happiness (Unconditioned Response, UCR) in the infant.
• The caregiver (e.g., mother) starts as a Neutral Stimulus (NS), eliciting no specific response.
• Through repeated pairings, where the caregiver is present when the infant is fed, the infant begins to associate the caregiver with the food.
• Eventually, the caregiver becomes a Conditioned Stimulus (CS), and their presence alone can elicit the Conditioned Response (CR) of pleasure/happiness, thus forming an attachment. The caregiver is initially a neutral stimulus (NS), then becomes associated with the unconditioned stimulus of food, and produces the conditioned response of pleasure. According to learning theory, Annie, as the mother, before attachment is formed, the milk she gives is best described as an unconditioned stimulus. Once attachment is formed, Annie is best described as a conditioned stimulus.

Operant Conditioning (Learning by Reinforcement):

This explains how behaviours are strengthened through reinforcement.

• • Positive Reinforcement: When an infant cries, it leads to a response from the caregiver (e.g., feeding). The infant gains pleasure or reward (food) and is thus positively reinforced to repeat crying to gain attention and food.
  • Negative Reinforcement: The caregiver also experiences reinforcement. When the infant cries, it is an unpleasant sound (negative stimulus). By feeding the baby, the caregiver stops the crying, which is the removal of an unpleasant experience. This acts as negative reinforcement for the caregiver, increasing the likelihood they will respond to the infant’s cries again, thereby strengthening the attachment bond.
  • Secondary Drive Hypothesis: Dollard & Miller (1950) used this term to explain that hunger is a primary drive (innate biological need for survival), and attachment becomes a secondary drive. Attachment is learned because the caregiver becomes associated with the satisfaction (reduction) of this primary drive (hunger). The reinforcement process is reciprocal, strengthening the emotional bond.

The learning theory has been influential but faces significant criticism, particularly from animal studies like Harlow’s and human studies like Schaffer and Emerson’s

Strengths of Learning Theory of Attachment (AO3)

1. Plausible and Scientific Basis: The learning theory is considered plausible and scientific because it is founded on established behaviourist principles. Behaviourism, with its focus on observable behaviour and controlled experiments (e.g., B.F. Skinner’s research on operant conditioning), lends credibility to the theory. It provides a clear and straightforward framework for understanding how attachments might form through environmental stimuli and responses. The focus on stimulus-response associations also allows it to be easily investigated and observed.

2. Explains Reciprocal Reinforcement: The theory effectively explains how the reinforcement process can be reciprocal, strengthening the emotional bond between infant and caregiver. For the infant, crying (behaviour) leads to a response from the caregiver (e.g., feeding), which is pleasurable and acts as a positive reinforcement, making the crying (and subsequent attachment-seeking) more likely. For the caregiver, the infant’s crying is an unpleasant sound; by responding (e.g., feeding), the crying stops, which acts as a negative reinforcement for the caregiver, increasing the likelihood they will respond again in the future. This mutual reinforcement can be seen as strengthening the attachment bond.

3. Provides Useful Information: Although often criticised, the learning theory does provide useful information by explaining that infants learn through association and reinforcement. It highlights that attention and responsiveness from a caregiver, and their sensitivity to the child’s needs, can contribute to the formation of an attachment.

4. Practical Applications (Indirect Relevance): While not directly for attachment, the principles of learning theory have been applied successfully in various real-world contexts, such as developing treatments for phobias (systematic desensitisation and flooding) and addictions (aversion therapy and covert sensitisation). This general usefulness of behaviourist principles in shaping behaviour might lend some indirect support to the idea that complex behaviours, including attachment, could be learned.

Limitations of Learning Theory of Attachment (AO3)

1. Contradictory Evidence from Animal Studies:

   • Harlow’s Research (1958): This is one of the most significant challenges to the learning theory. Harlow’s experiments with rhesus monkeys demonstrated that infant monkeys overwhelmingly preferred the soft, cloth-covered surrogate mother (which provided “contact comfort”) over the wire mother that provided food. This directly contradicts the “cupboard love” hypothesis, suggesting that comfort is more important than food in attachment formation.
   • Lorenz’s Imprinting (1935): Lorenz’s study of goslings showed that young birds imprinted on the first moving object they saw during a critical period, suggesting that attachment (or imprinting) is an innate, instinctive process rather than a learned one based on food. This directly challenges the learning theory’s assumption that attachment is learned from a “blank slate”.

2. Contradictory Evidence from Human Studies:

   • Schaffer and Emerson’s Glasgow Study (1964): This research found that the primary attachment figure was not necessarily the person who fed the infant. Instead, infants were more likely to form attachments with caregivers who were most interactive and sensitive to their signals (sensitive responsiveness), regardless of who provided the food. This directly undermines the food-based “cupboard love” explanation.
   • Interactional Synchrony and Reciprocity: These are key features of caregiver-infant interaction that learning theory struggles to explain. Research by Brazelton et al. (1975) and Feldman (2007) has emphasised the importance of these complex, reciprocal social interactions in attachment formation, which go beyond simple stimulus-response associations related to feeding.

3. Reductionist: The learning theory is often criticised for being environmentally reductionist. It breaks down the complex behaviour of attachment into very basic stimulus-response (S-R) associations and reinforcement processes. Critics argue that this is too simplistic to explain the depth, complexity, and emotional richness of human attachment behaviours. It fails to account for the broader social and emotional context of human interactions.

4. Environmentally Deterministic: The theory suggests that early learning rigidly determines later attachment behaviours, implying a strong sense of environmental determinism. This perspective implies that an individual’s attachment style is solely a product of their early learning experiences, leaving little room for free will or the influence of other factors throughout life.

5. Neglects Innate Biological Factors: A significant limitation is its failure to account for innate biological predispositions and evolutionary factors in attachment formation. In contrast, Bowlby’s monotropic theory, which is an evolutionary explanation, highlights adaptive behaviours like social releasers (e.g., crying, cooing, smiling) and the rooting reflex, which are not learned but are innate mechanisms designed to promote attachment and survival.

Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory

John Bowlby, heavily influenced by psychodynamic ideas, proposed an evolutionary explanation for attachment.

He argued that attachment is an innate, instinctive process that serves an important adaptive (survival) function.

Infants are biologically programmed to form attachments to caregivers because this keeps them safe and protected from hazards, thus increasing their chances of survival.

Monotropy

Bowlby’s monotropic theory suggests that a child has an innate (i.e., inborn) need to attach to one main attachment figure. This primary attachment relationship is considered more important and significant than all other relationships a child might form.

Typically, this primary attachment figure is the mother, though Bowlby did not strictly rule out others.

The idea is that this bond is crucial for survival, as the caregiver provides food and protection, making it evolutionarily sensible for babies and mothers to form a strong attachment to ensure the baby’s survival and the passing on of genes.

This primary attachment, often formed during the first 6-10 months of a baby’s life, is considered vital for the child’s future capacity to form other attachments.

Key features of Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory:

• Adaptive: Attachment behaviors (in both babies and caregivers) have evolved through natural selection to enhance survival. Infants are born with innate behaviours that ensure attachment occurs.
• Social Releasers: Bowlby suggested that babies are born with innate “cute” behaviours, such as smiling, cooing, and gripping. These “social releasers” are designed to activate the adult attachment system, making caregivers feel love and a desire to protect the baby. This reciprocal exchange builds the relationship.
• Law of Continuity: The more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of their attachment.
• Law of Accumulated Separation: The effects of every separation from the mother add up, implying that “the safest dose is therefore a zero dose”.
• Critical Period: Bowlby proposed a critical period for attachment formation, typically from birth to roughly 2.5 years (30 months). He believed that if an attachment did not form within this time, it would be very difficult, or even impossible, for a child to form one later, leading to severe and lasting negative consequences for social, emotional, and intellectual development. 

Evaluation of Monotropy

While Bowlby’s theory of monotropy is influential, it has faced several criticisms and has also received some support:

Contradictory Evidence from Human Studies:

• Multiple Attachments: Research by Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that children are capable of forming multiple attachments simultaneously, contradicting the idea of a single primary bond. Their study suggested that the primary attachment figure was often not the person who fed the infant, but rather the one who was most interactive and sensitive to their signals.
• Different Purposes of Attachments: Lamb (1987) observed that infants form different attachments for different purposes, for example, fathers for play and mothers for comfort, which challenges the idea of one attachment being uniquely superior for all functions.
• Cultural Variations: Studies like Van Ijzendoorn and Kronenberg’s meta-analysis (1993) found that monotropy is “scarce” in collectivist cultures where child-rearing responsibilities are often shared among the whole family. This suggests that monotropy may not be a universal feature of infant-caregiver attachments, as Bowlby believed. Some researchers, like Thomas, have questioned the benefits of monotropy, suggesting that a “network of attachments” might provide better care for infants.
• Interactional Synchrony and Reciprocity: These complex, reciprocal social interactions between caregiver and infant, which are seen as crucial for attachment, are not fully explained by the simple, food-based “cupboard love” hypothesis, but also not fully by monotropy alone.

Support from Animal Studies (with caveats):

• Lorenz (1935): His work on imprinting in goslings, where young birds formed an immediate attachment to the first moving object they saw during a critical period, supported the idea of innate attachment behaviors and a critical period, aligning with Bowlby’s adaptive concept.
• Harlow (1958): Harlow’s famous experiments with rhesus monkeys, which showed that infant monkeys preferred a cloth mother for “contact comfort” over a wire mother that provided food, contradicted the “cupboard love” theory and supported the idea that attachment is not solely about nourishment. This indirectly lends support to Bowlby’s focus on needs beyond just feeding for attachment.
• Limitations of Animal Studies: A significant criticism of using animal studies to support human attachment theories is the issue of generalisability. Humans and animals have very different biological and social complexities, making it problematic to extrapolate findings directly.

Issues and Debates

• Socially Sensitive Research: The concept of monotropy has been described as “socially sensitive” because it places a significant burden on mothers, implying they are solely responsible for a child’s psychological development and potential issues. Critics argue it exaggerates the differences between male and female roles in childcare, potentially pressuring working mothers to delay their return to employment, despite a lack of evidence for negative implications of the father as a primary caregiver. This perspective is considered a product of 1940s society and may not be well-suited to the evolving dynamics of modern families.
• Deterministic: Bowlby’s theory, particularly the “continuity hypothesis” and the internal working model, suggests that early attachment experiences rigidly determine later relationship styles, implying a lack of free will and that people are “doomed to repeat” certain relationship patterns. The theory suggests that psychological development is “dependent” on maternal attachment and that disruptions within the critical period have “serious consequences”.
• Reductionist (Partial): While complex, Bowlby’s focus on a single primary attachment figure can be seen as environmentally reductionist, oversimplifying the intricate nature of attachment by focusing predominantly on the mother-child bond and potentially neglecting other contributing factors like poverty, social deprivation, or genetics.
• Privation vs. Deprivation: Rutter argued that Bowlby’s theory confused “deprivation” (the loss of a formed attachment) with “privation” (the failure to form an attachment in the first place), suggesting that the severe long-term consequences Bowlby highlighted are more accurately attributed to privation.

---

Internal Working Model (IWM)

Bowlby suggested that children form a mental representation or “schema” of their relationship with their primary caregiver.

This mental representation is called an Internal Working Model because it serves as a model or “blueprint” for what relationships are like and how they should function.

It is a cognitive framework comprising mental representations for understanding the world, the self, and others.

The formation of this model is heavily influenced by the sensitive responsiveness of the primary caregiver.

If a caregiver is consistently sensitive and responsive to the infant’s needs, the child learns to feel safe and loved, developing a secure attachment.

Conversely, a child who experiences negative reactions from their primary caregiver might develop an internal working model in which they see themselves as unworthy.

Key Features of the Internal Working Model

The IWM encompasses three main features:

• A model of others as being trustworthy.
• A model of the self as valuable.
• A model of the self as effective when interacting with others.

A person’s interaction with others is guided by the memories and expectations derived from this internal model, which in turn influences and helps them evaluate their contact with others.

Influence on Future Relationships (Continuity Hypothesis)

The Internal Working Model is central to Bowlby’s continuity hypothesis.

This hypothesis suggests that there is a consistency between early emotional experiences and later relationships.

The quality of the infant’s primary attachment is believed to predict adult relationship patterns.

The IWM influences a person’s expectations of later relationships, thereby affecting their attitudes towards them.

This influence can be seen in various types of relationships:

• Childhood Relationships: The mental representation of their primary attachment is used for all future relationships, including friendships and working relationships. Children with a positive IWM, resulting from secure early attachments, tend to make friends easily and are confident and trusting.
• Adult Romantic Relationships: There appears to be a continuity between early attachment styles and the quality of later adult romantic relationships. An individual who was insecure-resistant in childhood, for instance, may develop trust issues and find it difficult to commit in adult relationships.
• Parenting Styles: Research indicates an intergenerational continuity, where adults tend to base their parenting style on their own internal working model, passing on attachment types through generations. For example, someone with a positive IWM is likely to become a consistent, sensitive, and responsive caregiver, while a negative IWM could lead to inconsistent or neglectful caregiving.

Supporting Evidence

Several studies provide support for the existence and influence of the Internal Working Model:

• Mary Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (1978): This study, which classified attachment types (secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-resistant), is cited as providing evidence for the existence of the internal working model. A secure child, having received sensitive care, develops a positive IWM, whereas an insecure-avoidant child may see themselves as unworthy due to negative primary caregiver reactions.
• Hazan and Shaver’s Love Quiz (1987): Research like Hazan and Shaver’s “Love Quiz” (1987) supports the internal working model by finding a correlation between childhood attachment styles and adult romantic relationships. Securely attached adults were more likely to have positive and long-lasting relationships, while insecurely attached adults showed patterns like fear of intimacy (avoidant) or neediness (resistant). However, this theory is sometimes criticized for being deterministic, implying that early attachment rigidly dictates all future relationships, which is not always the case.
• Bailey et al. (2007): This research observed 99 mothers and their children, finding that the majority of women had the same attachment classification to their babies as they did to their own mothers. This supports the idea of continuity and the significant impact of the first attachment on a child’s future parenting ability.
• Harlow’s Monkey Experiments (1958): Although animal studies, Harlow’s work with rhesus monkeys provided indirect support. Monkeys raised without mothers lacked social skills and became inadequate mothers themselves, demonstrating the importance of early attachment experiences and the lack of an IWM.

Criticisms and Limitations

Despite its influence, the Internal Working Model faces several criticisms:

• Determinism: The concept of the IWM is often criticized as being highly deterministic. It implies that early attachment experiences rigidly determine later relationship styles, suggesting a lack of free will and that individuals are “doomed to repeat” certain relationship patterns. However, people often believe they have complete conscious control over their relationships.
• Measurement Difficulty: The IWM is a hypothetical concept, making it difficult to measure directly. Research often relies on self-report techniques (like questionnaires) to assess the quality of childhood and adult relationships, which can be subjective and prone to social desirability bias.
• Contradictory Evidence: Not all studies fully support the IWM. For example, Zimmerman (2000) found very little relationship between infant attachment types and adolescent attachment to parents, questioning the consistency implied by the IWM.
• Correlation vs. Causation: Some studies showing an association between infant attachment type and later relationship quality may not indicate causation. Other factors, such as an infant’s temperament, might better explain later relationship issues.
• Socially Sensitive Implications: Like Bowlby’s monotropic theory generally, the IWM can be seen as socially sensitive, potentially placing a heavy burden on mothers and exaggerating their sole responsibility for a child’s psychological development.

Ainsworth’s Strange Situation

Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’. Types of attachment: secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant. Cultural variations in attachment, including van Ijzendoorn.

AO1

Procedure

Ainsworth and Bell (1971) conducted a controlled observation recording the reactions of a child and mother (caregiver) who were introduced to a strange room with toys.

In the strange situation, about 100 middle-class American infants and their mothers took part. The infant’s behaviour was observed during a set of pre-determined activities.

The Strange Situation procedure involved the child experiencing eight ‘episodes’ of approximately 3 minutes each.

The child is observed playing for 20 minutes while caregivers and strangers enter and leave the room, recreating the flow of the familiar and unfamiliar presence in most children’s lives.

Observers noted the child’s willingness to explore, separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, and reunion behaviour.

Ainsworth & Bell observed from the other side of a one-way mirror so that the children did not know that they were being observed.

Findings

	Secure	Resistant	Avoidant
Separation Anxiety	Distressed when the mother leaves	Intense distress when the mother leaves	No sign of distress when the mother leaves
Stranger Anxiety	Avoidant of strangers when alone, but friendly when the mother is present	The infant avoids the stranger – shows fear of the stranger	The infant is okay with the stranger and plays normally when the stranger is present
Reunion Behaviour	Positive and happy when the mother returns	The infant approaches the mother, but resists contact, and may even push her away	The Infant shows little interest when the mother returns
Other	Uses the mother as a safe base to explore their environment	The infant cries more and explores less than the other two types	The mother and stranger are able to comfort the infant equally well
% of infants	70%	15%	15%

 

Types of Attachment

Secure Attachment

The main characteristics of this attachment type are:

(i) Infants are upset when left alone by the mother.

(ii) Infants are happy when mother returns and seek contact with the mother.

(iii) Infants avoid the stranger when alone, but friendly when the mother is present.

(iv) The infants uses the mother as a safe base to explore their environment.

This type of attachment occurs because the mother meets the emotional needs of the infant.

Insecure Avoidant

The main characteristics of this attachment type are:

(i) Infants are unconcerned by mother’s absence when she leaves the room.

(ii) Infants shows little interest when they are reunited with the mother (i.e. she returns to the room).

(iii) Infants are strongly avoidant of mother and stranger, showing no motivation to interact with either adult.
The stranger is treated similar to the mother (does not seek contact).

This type of attachment occurs because the mother ignores the emotional needs of the infant.

Insecure Resistant / Ambivalent

The main characteristics of this attachment type are:

(i) infants are clingy to their mother in a new situation and are not willing to explore – suggesting that they do not have trust in her.

(ii) they are extremely distressed when left alone by their mother.

(iii) they cannot be comforted by a stranger and will not interact with them – they treat the stranger and the mother very differently.

(iv) when the mother returns they are pleased to see her and go to her for comfort, but then cannot be comforted and may show signs of anger towards her.

This type of attachment style occurs because the mother sometimes meets the needs of the infant and sometimes ignores their emotional needs, i.e., the mother’s behaviour is inconsistent.

AO2 Scenario Question

Johan was adopted at the age of 4. Before this, he was in an orphanage where there was very little emotional care. He is now 6 years old. His parents have noticed that he behaves in the same way toward strangers as he does with them.

Johan hurt himself recently, and he did not ask for them but accepted comfort from a man who stopped to help him.

What type of attachment is Johan displaying? What is the reason for this?

Strengths of the Strange Situation:

• Controlled Observation & Standardised Procedure: The Strange Situation is a highly controlled observational study with standardised procedures and clear behavioural categories. This consistency allows for accurate comparisons and replication across studies and cultures, enhancing reliability.
• High Reliability: It has shown good reliability, with high inter-rater reliability (different observers scoring similarly) and test-retest reliability (consistency over time). For instance, Bick et al. (2012) found 94% agreement on attachment types among trained observers.
• Predictive Validity: The attachment types identified are strongly predictive of later development. Securely attached children tend to have better outcomes in areas like school success, romantic relationships, and friendships, while insecure-resistant attachment is associated with worse outcomes, including bullying and mental health problems.

Limitations of the Strange Situation:

• Lack of Ecological Validity: The procedure takes place in an artificial, controlled laboratory setting, which may not reflect the child’s typical behaviour at home. This raises questions about how well the identified attachment types generalise to real-life situations.
• Cultural Bias (Imposed Etic): The Strange Situation was designed in America based on Western norms, making it ethnocentric. Applying it to other cultures assumes that attachment behaviour has the same meaning everywhere, which may not be true. For example, German children are encouraged to be independent, which might make them appear insecure-avoidant, while Japanese children’s extreme distress at separation is due to rare separations, not necessarily insecurity.
• Measures Only One Relationship: The Strange Situation primarily identifies the attachment type to the mother and may not reflect a child’s general attachment style, as they might have different attachment types with other caregivers like fathers or grandmothers.
• Temperament Hypothesis: Jerome Kagan (1984) proposed that observed behaviours in the Strange Situation might reflect innate temperamental characteristics of the child (“easy” or “difficult”) rather than solely the quality of attachment.
• Ethical Issues: The procedure can cause distress to the child, raising concerns about protection from psychological harm and informed consent, although Ainsworth argued that the situations are no more distressing than everyday experiences.
• Incomplete Classification System: The original three attachment types may be incomplete, as Main and Solomon (1986) identified a fourth, “disorganised” attachment type, which displays contradictory behaviours that don’t fit the original categories.

Cultural Variations in Attachment

AO1

Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) wanted to investigate if attachment styles (secure and insecure) are universal (the same) across cultures or culturally specific (vary considerably from place to place due to traditions, the social environment, or beliefs about children).

They did not collect the data for their study. Instead, they analyzed data from other studies using a method called a meta-analysis. Data from 32 studies in 8 different countries were analyzed.

All 32 studies used the strange situation procedure to study attachment. Using a meta-analysis (a statistical technique), they calculated the average percentage for the different attachment styles (e.g., secure, avoidant, resistant) in each country.

Results

Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg found that secure attachment was the majority of infants (70%). The lowest percentage of secure attachments was shown in China and the highest in Great Britain.

It was also found that Western countries that support independence, such as Germany, had high levels of insecure-avoidant.

Whereas Eastern countries that are more culturally close, such as Japan, had quite high levels of insecure resistant.

The exception to the pattern was China which had an equal number of avoidant and resistant infants.

Intra-Cultural Variation

A notable finding was that the differences within cultures were 1.5 times greater than the differences between cultures.

This means there was significant variation in attachment patterns within the same country, suggesting that it’s an oversimplification to assume all children are raised in the same way within a particular country.

For example, a study by Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi (2001) found differences between attachment types in urban Tokyo and more rural parts of Japan.

Cultural Interpretations for Variations

AO3

One problem is that many of the studies used in the meta-analysis had biased samples, which cannot claim to be representative of each culture.

For example, only 36 infants were used in the Chinese study, which is a very small sample size for such a populated country. Also, most of the studies analyzed were from Western cultures.

The Strange Situation was created and tested in the USA, which means that it may be culturally biased (ethnocentric), as it will reflect the norms and values of American culture.

This is a problem as it assumes that attachment behaviour has the same meaning in all cultures when in fact, cultural perception and understanding of behaviour differ greatly.

For example, the belief that attachment is related to anxiety on separation. This may not be the case in other cultures, e.g., Japan.

The original research by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg was conducted in 1988, reflecting child-rearing practices of that era. Child-rearing practices and societal values can change over time.

More recent studies, such as Simonella (2014) in Italy, have found different proportions of attachment types (fewer secure and more avoidant infants in modern Italian families) due to changing family life.

This raises questions about the temporal validity of the 1988 findings and their applicability to contemporary society.

Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation. Effects of institutionalisation, including the English and Romanian Adoptees project.

AO1

Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis suggests that continual disruption of the attachment between the infant and primary caregiver (i.e., mother) could result in long-term cognitive, social, and emotional difficulties for that infant.

Bowlby originally believed the effects to be permanent and irreversible.

He argued that the first 2.5 years of life, the critical period, were crucial. If the child was separated from their primary attachment figure (often the mother) for an extended period of time and in the absence of substitute care, the damage was inevitable.

Use the acronym – ADDIDDAS to remember the effects of maternal deprivation: Aggression, Delinquency, Dwarfism, Intellectual retardation, Depression, Dependency, Affectionless Psychopathy, and Social maladjustment.

Consequences of Deprivation:

The negative consequences of maternal deprivation include:

• • Intellectual Development: Reduced intelligence or lower IQ. Goldfarb (1947/1955) found a lower IQ in children who remained in institutions compared to those fostered with higher emotional care.
  • Emotional Development: Emotional problems, including a lack of empathy and affection, leading to a condition called “affectionless psychopathy”. This means an inability to show affection or concern for others, and a lack of shame or responsibility.
  • Delinquency: An increased risk of criminal or antisocial behaviour, such as stealing.
  • Problems with Forming Relationships: Difficulties in forming close relationships later in life.

  • Affectionless Psychopathy: An inability to show affection or concern for others, a lack of shame, or a sense of responsibility. Such individuals act on impulse with little regard for the consequences of their actions. For example, showing no guilt for antisocial behaviour.

Strengths of Bowlby’s Theory

1. Real-World Applications and Policy Influence A significant strength of Bowlby’s theory is its wide-ranging practical applications and its influence on real-world policies concerning child welfare.

   • Impact on Child Care Practices: The theory has profoundly changed the way vulnerable children are cared for, leading to improvements in institutional care and hospital policies. For instance, maternity units now allow mothers to spend more time with their babies, and visiting hours in hospitals for sick children have been extended, with parents even being allowed to stay overnight. In orphanages, there is now an emphasis on providing a consistent key caregiver to prevent disinhibited attachment. This suggests the theory has made useful contributions to our understanding and explanation of child development.
   • Influence on Parental Leave: Bowlby’s ideas contributed to policy changes such as the introduction of extended maternity leave in the UK, designed to help parents bond with their children. More recently, this has extended to fathers as well, enabling shared parental leave. Bowlby himself was asked to provide a report to the World Health Organization entitled “Maternal Care and Mental Health” in the early 1950s, highlighting the recognized value of his ideas for society.

2. Emphasis on the Importance of Early Childhood Experiences The theory is praised for drawing significant attention to the crucial connection between early childhood experiences, particularly the relationship with parents or primary caregivers, and later development. It focuses on how an infant’s early emotional experiences can shape their long-term psychological well-being and relationship patterns.

3. Support from Animal Studies While generalising from animal studies to humans has limitations, Bowlby’s theory gained empirical support from influential animal research, particularly concerning the long-term effects of early deprivation and the concept of a critical period.

   • Harlow’s Monkey Studies (1958/1966): Harlow’s research with rhesus monkeys demonstrated that monkeys reared in isolation or with surrogate mothers suffered severe emotional and social problems in older age. They lacked social skills, were often timid, struggled with mating, and as “motherless mothers,” became inadequate parents themselves. This supported Bowlby’s idea that contact comfort and early maternal experiences are vital for healthy emotional and social development, and that the impact of maternal deprivation could be irreversible if it lasted beyond a critical period (around 90 days for monkeys).
   • Lorenz’s Imprinting Studies (1935): Lorenz’s work with geese showing imprinting (a strong bond formed with the first moving object seen after hatching within a critical period) also provided evidence for innate attachment behaviours and the concept of a critical period for attachment formation. Bowlby was explicitly inspired by Lorenz’s findings when developing his own theory.
   • Levy et al. (2003): This study on baby rats showed that separating them from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development, providing further animal support for the long-term effects of maternal deprivation.

4. Initial Empirical Support from Human Studies Bowlby’s theory was initially supported by his own research and other studies, providing what was then considered evidence for its claims.

   • Bowlby’s 44 Thieves Study (1944): This study examined the links between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation. Bowlby found that 14 out of 44 teenage delinquents were affectionless psychopaths, and crucially, 12 of these 14 had experienced prolonged early separation from their mothers. In the control group, only 2 out of 44 had maternal separation, and none were affectionless psychopaths. This study was presented as demonstrating a connection between maternal deprivation and criminal behaviour.
   • Goldfarb’s Study (1955): Goldfarb followed 30 orphaned children and found that those who remained in an orphanage had a significantly lower average IQ (68) compared to those fostered by four months of age (96), providing support for the intellectual consequences of maternal deprivation.

5. Consideration of Environmental Influences Unlike purely biological explanations that might suggest an innate, unchangeable trajectory, Bowlby’s theory, while rooted in evolutionary ideas, also acknowledges the critical role of environmental factors, specifically the quality of caregiving. He proposed that infants become most strongly attached to the caregiver who responds most sensitively to their needs, indicating that environmental interaction is key to forming a secure attachment.

Criticisms and Counter-Evidence

• Flawed Evidence: Bowlby’s evidence for maternal deprivation, including studies of WWII orphans and his own 44 thieves study, has been criticized as flawed. War orphans were often traumatized and lacked proper aftercare, which could explain developmental difficulties beyond just separation. Children in poor institutions were deprived of many aspects of care, not just maternal care.
• Researcher Bias: In the 44 thieves study, Bowlby himself conducted the assessments for affectionless psychopathy and the family interviews, raising concerns about researcher bias, as he might have been influenced by what he hoped to find. This could have impacted the validity of his conclusions.
• Contradictory Research (Lewis, 1954): Hilda Lewis (1954/1959) partially replicated Bowlby’s study on a larger scale with 500 young people, finding no link between a history of prolonged separation from the mother and later criminality or difficulty in forming close relationships. This challenges Bowlby’s conclusions.
• Deprivation vs. Privation (Rutter): Michael Rutter (1972/1981) criticized Bowlby for not clearly distinguishing between “deprivation” (the loss of an attachment bond after it has formed) and “privation” (the complete failure to form an attachment in the first place). Rutter argued that the severe, long-term consequences Bowlby described were more likely due to privation than deprivation.
• Sensitive Period, Not Critical Period (Koluchova’s Twins): The idea of an irreversible critical period has been challenged. The case of twin boys from Czechoslovakia, Koluchova (1976), who were isolated from 18 months until age 7 but later recovered fully with loving care, suggests that the effects of early deprivation may not be irreversible. This indicates that the first few years are more of a “sensitive period” where significant recovery is possible with appropriate intervention.
• Social Sensitivity and Gender Bias: Bowlby’s theory is socially sensitive because it places a significant burden of responsibility on mothers, potentially making working mothers feel guilty for placing children in childcare. It arguably reinforces traditional gender roles and may underestimate the role of fathers. Research, such as Field (1978), suggests that fathers can adopt behaviours typical of primary caregivers, indicating that responsiveness, not gender, is key to attachment.
• Economic Implications: The theory has influenced social policies, such as extended maternity leave in the UK, aiming to ensure strong parent-child bonds. However, this can have economic implications, like increasing the gender pay gap or reducing the number of males in the workforce if paternity leave is not equally utilized.
• Psychic Determinism: Like other psychodynamic theories, Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory can be criticized for psychic determinism, suggesting that unconscious early childhood experiences determine later behaviour, which can lead to a “self-fulfilling prophecy” and may suggest individuals are not responsible for their disorders.

Effects of institutionalisation, including the English and Romanian Adoptees project

AO1

Institutionalization is the behaviour patterns of children who have been raised outside of the family home in an institution such as an orphanage or a residential children’s home.

This often leads to privation, which is the complete failure of a child to form any attachment bond at all, typically more harmful than deprivation.

Context of Romanian Orphanages:

In the 1980s, Nicolae Ceaușescu’s regime in Romania aimed to increase the population by banning abortion and contraception. Many families, unable to care for their numerous children, placed them in state-run orphanages.

These institutions were severely overcrowded and under-resourced, providing very little physical or emotional care and minimal cognitive stimulation.

When the regime collapsed in 1989, these neglected children were discovered, and many were adopted by families outside Romania, including the UK.

Note, you need to describe the effects of institutional care – this means the results of research studies rather than the procedure (i.e. what happened).

According to Bowlby (1969), later relationships are likely to be a continuation of early attachment styles (secure and insecure) because the behaviour of the infant’s primary attachment figure promotes an internal working model of relationships, which leads the infant to expect the same in

The continuity hypothesis is the idea that there is consistency between early emotional experiences and later relationships, and it sees children’s attachment types being reflected in these later relationships. This idea is based on the internal working model, which was proposed by Bowlby in his monotropic theory.

Bowlby sees attachment as monotropic, where infants have an innate tendency to form an attachment to one particular person.

This attachment is the strongest of them all, forming a model for future relationships, which the infant will expect from others.

This is the idea of the internal working model, a template for future relationships based upon the infant’s primary attachment, which creates a consistency between early emotional experiences and later relationships.

Explain how the Internal working model affects childhood relationships

Childhood Relationships

AO1

Early attachment styles can significantly affect a child’s peer relationships and social competence during childhood.

• Securely attached children tend to be more confident in interactions with friends, exhibit better social competence, are less isolated, and are generally more popular. They are also more likely to cooperate with adults and regulate their emotions effectively. Studies like the Minnesota study (2005) followed participants from infancy to late adolescence, finding continuity between early attachment and later emotional and social behaviour, with securely attached children rated highest for social competence. Hartup et al. (1993) found that securely attached children were more popular at nursery and engaged more in social interactions.
• Insecurely attached children, particularly those with insecure-avoidant or insecure-resistant attachment styles, often struggle with making and maintaining friendships. They may be more reliant on teachers for interaction and emotional support or display difficult behaviours like bullying. For example, Myron-Wilson and Smith (1989) found that insecure-avoidant children were more likely to be victims of bullying, while insecure-resistant children were more likely to be bullies themselves.

AO3

Considerable evidence has supported this view. For example, the Minnesota study (2005) followed participants from infancy to late adolescence and found continuity between early attachment and later emotional/social behaviour.

Securely attached children were rated most highly for social competence later in childhood and were less isolated and more popular than insecurely attached children.

Hartup et al. (1993) argue that children with a secure attachment type are more popular at nursery and engage more in social interactions with other children. In contrast, insecurely attached children tend to rely more on teachers for interaction and emotional support.

An alternative explanation for continuity in relationships is the temperament hypothesis which argues that an infant’s temperament affects how a parent responds, and so may be a determining factor in infant attachment type.

The infant’s temperament may explain their issues (good or bad) with relationships in later life.

Explain how the Internal working model affects adult relationships

Adult Relationships

Parenting Style

Research indicates an intergenerational continuity between adult attachment types and their children, including children adopting the parenting styles of their own parents.

People tend to base their parenting style on the internal working model, so the attachment type tends to be passed on through generations of a family.

• Bailey et al. (2007) found that the majority of women had the same attachment classification to both their babies and their own mothers, supporting this continuity.
• Harlow’s monkey studies (1958/1966) also showed a link between poor early attachment (privation) and later difficulties with parenting, as the deprived monkeys lacked an IWM for appropriate caregiving and became inadequate mothers themselves.

Romantic Relationships

There is a strong link between childhood attachment types and adult romantic love styles.

The most well-known research in this area is Hazan and Shaver’s “Love Quiz” (1987). They found a high correlation:

• Secure adults typically describe their love experiences as happy, friendly, and trusting, believing in lasting love and being comfortable with intimacy and dependency.
• Anxious-resistant adults often experience love with obsession, a desire for reciprocation, emotional highs and lows, and a fear of abandonment.
• Anxious-avoidant adults tend to fear intimacy, emotional highs and lows, and jealousy, believing they do not need love to be happy and being uncomfortable with closeness.

This research supports the idea that the IWM formed in early childhood acts as a template for adult romantic relationships.

Limitations and Criticisms

While the influence of early attachment is widely supported, there are several limitations and alternative explanations:

• Correlational Nature: Much of the research, including Hazan and Shaver’s, is correlational, meaning it can show a link but cannot establish a definitive cause-and-effect relationship. Other factors, such as socioeconomic status, family history, or inherited mental health conditions, could influence both early attachment and later relationship outcomes.
• Temperament Hypothesis: An alternative explanation, proposed by Jerome Kagan (1984), suggests that an infant’s innate temperament (e.g., being “easy” or “difficult”) affects how parents respond, and this innate temperament, rather than the attachment style itself, might be the underlying factor influencing relationship quality throughout life. This implies that attempts to change adult relationship patterns by focusing on attachment styles might not be effective.
• Determinism vs. Free Will: The concept of the IWM and continuity hypothesis can be seen as deterministic, suggesting that early attachment “dooms” individuals to certain relationship patterns, limiting their free will. However, it is also argued that the influence is “probabilistic,” meaning it increases the risk but does not inevitably determine future outcomes.
• Counter-Evidence/Recovery from Deprivation: The idea that early experiences are irreversible is challenged by research on Romanian orphans. Studies by Rutter et al. (2007, 2010) showed that while institutionalisation had severe effects (e.g., disinhibited attachment, lower IQ), many children adopted early (before 6 months) showed significant recovery and went on to form positive relationships, suggesting that the critical period might be more of a “sensitive period” and that the damaging effects are not always permanent.
• Validity of Measures: Research often relies on self-report questionnaires (like the Love Quiz) and retrospective recall of childhood experiences, which can be subjective, influenced by social desirability bias, and prone to inaccurate memory.

Download PDF Copy