Attachment

A strong, reciprocal emotion and enduring bond between 2

people. Attachments in infancy are important because they
can affect future relationships and emotional health. Infants
display attachment through their behaviour around their
primary caregiver. It is characterised by a desire to maintain
proximity. Indicators include the degree of separation
distress, pleasure at reunion and stranger anxiety.
Attachment style is categorised as being secure or insecure.
 The learning theory/cupboard love theory
of attachment
Proposes all behaviour is learned through one out of two types of conditioning.
1) Classical conditioning – Learning through association:
Pavlov’s dogs were used to explain attachment. Food (UCS) produces a sense of
pleasure (UCR). The person who feeds (CS) becomes associated with food,
causing the feeder to eventually produce the pleasure associated with food, so the
pleasure becomes the CR (little albert).
2) Operant conditioning – Learning through reinforcement:
Learning also occurs when we’re rewarded for doing something with praise or a
material reward, so each time you do something good, it will result in positive
reinforcement, which means you’re likely to do it again, and visa versa with
negative reinforcement.
Dollard and Miller (1950) came up with the theory that hungry infants feel
uncomfortable producing a drive to reduce the discomfort. When the infant is fed,
the feeling of hunger is replaced with a feeling of pleasure, so food becomes the
primary reinforcer, and the feeder is the secondary reinforcer.
 Strengths and weaknesses
Strengths:
Provides an adequate explanation of how attachments form as we know we
do learn through association and reinforcement.
Weaknesses:
 Main weakness is the role of food, as people still seem to believe it plays
an integral role in developing a close relationship, which has been
undermined by a study conducted by Harlow. He used monkeys who had
became distressed when cages were cleaned, as the sanitary pads which lined
the bottom, had become a ‘security blanket’. Harlow created two wire
mothers, one made of cloth, and one with milk. According to the learning
theory, they should have attached to the lactating mother, but they didn’t, and
would cling to the cloth mother, especially when scared. (May not be
generalised to humans).
 Additionally another study was conducted by Schaffer & Emerson in
which 60 babies were observed, and it was found that they were most
attached to the person who was most responsive with them, not the feeder.
 Bowlby’s theory of attachment
 Adaptive & innate: Children have an innate drive to become attached to the caregiver (like
imprinting) because attachment has long term benefits. Therefore attachment is adaptive because
they increase the likelihood of survival.
 Sensitive period: Since attachment is innate there is a limited window for development
(sensitive period). He suggests this is the 2 nd quarter of the first year, when infants are most
sensitive to development of attachments. If you miss this window, he says you wont form
attachments.
 Care giving is innate: It’s an adaptive behaviour which increases the offspring's chance of
survival, infants are born with social releasers such as smiling or crying, which causes a care giving
behaviour.
 A secure base: Attachment is protection and acts as a secure base for children.
 Monotropy & Hierarchy: One of the many attachments infants will form will be a primary
attachment with the person who responds best to their social releasers (usually the mother) and this
is known as the monotropy. The child will attach to the most sensitively responding caregiver and
he calls this the sensitivity hypothesis. The rest fall into ranking.
 Internal working model: Cluster of concepts about relationships and what to expect from
others.
 The continuity hypothesis: The view that there is a link between early attachment
relationship and later emotional behaviour.
 Strengths and weaknesses
Strengths:
 Bowlby’s imprinting theory is supported by research by Lorenz who found goslings imprinted on
the first moving object they saw, supporting the idea that there is an innate drive to attach.
 Universal concept, proven by many studies, including Tronick et al who studied an African tribe
who had very different childcare patterns, however kids still showed one primary attachment.
 Shaffer & Emerson found most of the 60 infants formed many attachments, however they
maintained 1 primary attachment, not necessarily to the person who fed and bathed them, as there
was little correlation, suggesting quality not the quantity of the caregiver.
 Bowlby’s emphasis on the interaction is supported by study conducted by Harlow, as the monkeys
had difficulties in reproductive relationships and were poor parents, as the relationship they had
with their ‘wire mothers’ was a one way relationship.
Weaknesses:
 Many psychologists say all attachment figures are equally important - this undermines Bowlby as
he said secondary attachments contribute to social development as well as primary ones (siblings).
 One key theory Bowlby suggests is that there are continuities between early attachment and later
behaviours, however this can be explained alternatively. Kagan came up with the idea of the
temperament hypothesis – certain personality/temperament behaviours of the infant can shape a
mothers responsiveness. Eg/ if a child is born with a trusting behaviour and the mother is friendly,
that could be the cause of secure attachment. Research to support the idea that children are born
with innate temperamental differences was conducted by Thomas + Chess who identified 3 basic
types: Easy, difficult and slow to warm up. Further evidence comes from Bokhorst et al who found
greater temperament similarities between identical twins than non identical.
 Studies supporting Bowlby’s theory
 Bowlby says relationships will be affect by the mothers behaviour, because early
relationships help form the internal working model. Hazen & Shaver put the ‘love quiz’
in a newspaper which asked questions about early experiences, love involvements
(current) and attitudes towards love. They found:
Secure Adults Resistant adults Avoidant adults

Different love experiences Relationships are positive. Preoccupied by love. Fearful of closeness.

Adults views on Trust others + believe in Fall in love easily – hard to Love not durable +
relationships enduring love. fine true love. unnecessary for happiness.
Memories of their mother Positive – caring mother. Conflict memories. Cold and rejecting mothers.

 Prior & Glanser conducted a longitudinal study which demonstrated a link between
early attachment experiences and later social functioning. They provided the following
summary:
- Secure attachment is associated with positive outcomes such as less emotional
dependence and higher achievement orientation and interpersonal harmony.
- Avoidant attachment is related to later aggressiveness and negative thoughts.
- Resistant attachment is associated with great anxiety and with drawn behaviour.
- Disorganised attachment is linked to hostile and aggressive behaviour.
 The Strange Situation
Ainsworth + Bell conducted a study which aimed to see how infants aged
between 12 and 18 months behaved under conditions of mild stress, created by
the caregiver leaving the room. They looked for 4 things: 1) Secure base
behaviour 2) Separation anxiety 3) Reunion behaviour 4) Stranger anxiety.
The procedure involved 8, 3 minute episodes where the infants behaviour was
assessed by an observer who recorded the infants behaviour every 15 seconds.
1) Researcher introduces mother and child to strange room.
2) Mother and child are left alone and child can investigate toys.
3) Stranger enters the room and talks to mum and then approaches the child.
4) Mother leaves child with stranger who tries to interact.
5) Mother returns to greet/comfort infant, and the stranger leaves.
6) Mother leaves and the child is alone in the room.
7) Stranger returns and tries to engage.
8) Stranger leaves and mother returns and picks up child to comfort it.
They found:
 Securely attached (66%): Unlikely to cry when caregiver leaves room + easily soothed
with bodily contact from caregiver, but may be reluctant to leave caregivers side.
Comfortable with social interaction + use caregiver as secure base to explore
independently.
 Insecure avoidant (22%): Tend to avoid social interaction and showed little response to
the separation + don’t seek comfort on return. Happy to explore without caregiver +
when picked up show little tendency to cling.
 Insecure resistant (12%): Show a lot of distress when caregiver leaves room but resist
hugs when she returns. They both seek and reject social interaction.
 Insecure disorganised (extra category, discovered later on): inconsistent patterns of
social behaviour.
Conclusion:
 attachment differences depended upon the sensitivity of the mother, for example
sensitive mothers generally had infants who were securely attached.
 less sensitive and less responsive mothers (i.e. those who ignored their infant or were
impatient with them) had babies who were more likely to be insecurely attached.
 a baby’s attachment does seem to be affected to some extent by the quality and
sensitivity of the caregiver.
 Strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths:
SS classification has good reliability, tested by interrater reliability (comparing ratings made by
panel of experienced judges), and Ainsworth found 94% agreement in the rating.
 Easily replicated, adding reliability so has become an accepted methodology.
Weaknesses:
Lacks pop. validity - sample was 100 middle class American kids, hard to generalise results.
Lacks validity - some say it only identifies attachment type to mother, no other care givers.
Criticised on ethics because child + mother are put under stress (separation and stranger
anxiety).
Observational study has been criticised for having low ecological validity because the child may
act differently as it’s not in it’s normal surroundings, making it unrealistic.
Maternal Sensitivity Scale - by Mary Ainsworth to rate mothers actions towards infants innate
behaviours. It says the mothers behaviour determines attachment type, rather than the kids
reactions.
-Mothers of securely attached infants were sensitive and accepting.
-Mothers of insecurely attached infants were unresponsive and less affectionate.
-Mothers of avoidant infants were rejecting and paid less attention to infant when it entered a
room.
-Mothers of resistant infants were occupied with routine activities.
However it could support the SS – Ravel et al found a low correlation between measure of
sensitivity and strength of attachment which was used to develop the Maternal reflective
 Cultural variations in attachment
Culture - rules, morals and customs + ways of interacting that bind together a society or collection of people
Cultural variations - ways groups vary in terms of social practices + effects practices have on behaviour, and
they can differ in two ways:
Collectivist cultures – emphasis on group efforts + sharing + interdependence. Eg/ Japan and Israel.
 Individualist cultures – emphasis on personal achievement + developing initiative. Eg/ USA and England.
Studies supporting Bowlby's theory that attachment is universal:
1) Ainsworth Uganda study (1967) – Observed childcare similarities in Uganda such as infants using their
mothers as secure bases + mothers of securely attached infants showing greater sensitivity towards children
than those of insecurely attached, similar to English or American infants.
2) Tronick et al (1992) - studied an African tribe who live in extended family groups + the infants were
looked after by different women but usually slept with their own mother. Despite these differences, the
children showed one primary attachment at six months.
Studies which argue cultural differences proving attachment isn’t innately determined:
1) Grossmann & Grossmann (1991) - German infants tended to be classified as insecure. German culture
involves interpersonal distance between parents and children, which leads to insecurely attached
classification.
2) Takahasi (1990) - used SS technique to study 60 middle class Japanese infants + mothers, found similar
rates of secure attachment to those in US sample. However no evidence of insecure avoidant but high rate of
insecure resistant and were particularly distressed when left alone, due to the cultural childrearing variation,
that in Japan children are rarely separated from their mothers.
Conclusion: They suggest that despite the fact there are cultural variations, the strongest attachments are still
formed with infants mother. However there are differences in patterns that can be related to cultural
differences.
 Study by Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg
Procedures: Conducted meta-analysis of 32 studies which used the SS to measure attachment.
Research from 8 different countries was used including Western cultures + non-Western cultures to see
if there were inter-cultural (differences between two different cultures) and intra-cultural (differences
within one culture) differences.
Findings: Variation between cultures showed secure attachment was the most common type of
attachment in all 8 nations. However, significant differences were found in the distribution of insecure
attachments. Insecure avoidant was the most common in every country except Japan + Israel.
Variations within cultures was 1.5 times greater. There was greater variation within cultures than
between cultures.
Conclusions: The global pattern across cultures appears to be similar to that found in the US. Secure
attachment is the norm, which supports the idea that secure attachment is the ‘best’ , and the cross
cultural similarities supper the view that attachment is innate and biological.
Criticisms:
1) The greater variations found within than between cultures shows that it’s wrong to think of any
culture as a whole, which means that comparing cultures based on their uniformity lacks validity,
and therefore the results may not be representative of the culture they represent.
2) The SS was created and tested in the USA which means it may be culturally biased (ethnocentric)
and so therefore those who use it assume behaviour has the same meaning in every culture. So
therefore it lack external validity.
3) Some countries have more studies than others, eg/ America has 18 whilst China has 1 so the results
are maybe not accurate and reliable.
 Evaluating cultural variations
1) Culture Bias:
Rothbaum et all (2000) argued that attachment theory + research is not relevant to other cultures
because it’s rooted to American culture, particularly looking at contrasts between American and
Japanese culture.
1) Sensitivity hypothesis - Bowlby + Ainsworth promoted the view that secure attachment was
related to caregiver sensitivity but Rothbaum argues that Japans ideas about sensitivity differ
to western ones, as they promote dependence, so sensitivity has the opposite objectives.
2) Continuity hypothesis - Bowlby + Ainsworth proposed that infants who were securely
attached would grow to be socially and emotionally competent, defined as independent. But
in Japan competence means not showing emotion and being group orientated.
3) Secure base hypothesis - In the west, secure attachments are seen to provide infants with a
secure base from which they can explore and become independent. However in Japan, they
promote dependence, oriented with the ‘amae’ concept (depend upon another's love).
Therefore insecure resistant behaviours are typical and may explain why classification is
higher in Japan.
Rothbaum suggests psychologists should aim to produce a set of indigenous theories
(explanations of attachment rotted in individual cultures) . However they may have overstated the
case, Posada & Jacobs note that there is a lot of evidence which supports the universality of
attachment from varying countries. Prior & Glaser conclude that expression of maternal
sensitivity and manifestations of secure base behaviour may vary across cultures but the core
concepts are universal.
2) Nation vs Culture:
Rothbaum et al talks about behaviour of Japanese infants but this may be unjustified
generalisation because within the country, there are multiple subcultures which have
different child care practices. Van Ijzendoorn & Sagi (2001) found in Tokyo secure
attachment figures were similar to Western studies, but when a rural sample was done,
there was higher numbers of insecure-resistant. This helps conclude that data was
collected on different subcultures, so great care should be taken in generalising samples.
3) Cultural Similarities:
The cross cultural similarities found were explained by media (by Ijzendoorn +
Kroonenberg) which spreads ideas about parenting so children world wide are exposed to
same influences, meaning similarities may not be due to innate influences, but increased
globalisation.
4) Cross-Cultural Research:
Many of the researchers were native to the country they were studying however this was
not always true, and even when they were indigenous, they may be part of different
subcultures. This means there are problems with understand languages. Another problem
is the chosen use of ‘tools’. Eg/ they measured behaviour using intelligence
tests/observational methods which relate to cultural assumptions. Imposed etic is used to
describe technique designed to be used in one culture but imposed on another, which then
produce inaccurate results.
 Disruption of attachment
1) Separation: Infant is parted from care giver for short period. It’s not necessarily
harmful.
Robertson & Bowlby: Children go through 3 stages when care giver leaves (PDD
MODEL):
1) Protest - Cries, screams, try to cling to parent.
2) Despair – protesting begins to stop, appear calmer, but refuse other attempts of
comfort.
3) Detachment – Child starts to engage with others but reject caregiver on return.
Robertson & Robertson (1967-73) - series of films of kids who get separated from
primary attachment figure.
Jane, Lucy, Thomas & Katie – All under 3 and placed in foster care with Robertson’s
for a few weeks, whilst mother was in hospital. The Robertson's tried to sustain high
level of emotional care, and fathers’ visits were arranged regularly. Kate was taken to
see her mum and was much more settled then, and all kids adjusted well but some
showed signs of distress including Thomas who rejected cuddles. They didn’t reject
mother on return, but reluctant to leave foster mother.
John – Placed in residential nursery for 9 days, when mother was having baby.
Father visits regularly, and during the 1st 2 weeks he behaved normally. But then started
making efforts to gain attention from nurses. He seeks comfort in teddy bear and
gradually breaks down, refuses food, drink, and cries a lot, as well as not talking to
father, and struggles when mother returns.
A 2 year old goes to hospital – Laura was admitted for 8-day stay, and film shows her
alternating between calm and distressed periods. She was visited occasionally by
parents, and begs to go home, but as time goes on, she tries to cope with having to stay.

2) Deprivation: An existing attachment is lost and this can be harmful.

Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis: It proposing frequently early
separations cause emotional maladjustment, emphasising link
between early childhood experiences + adulthood problems.
Bowlby’s 44 thieves: 88 children ranging from 5-16, all been referred to child guidance
clinic, 44 for stealing (16 of which were diagnosed as affectionless psychopaths) and
the remaining 44 hadn’t committed a crime. Interviewed children + families to build up
record of life. 86% of affectionless psychopaths thieves had experienced prolonged
separation and 17% of remaining thieves had experienced it too, but only 4% of non-
thieves. Link found between early separation and later social maladjustment.
 Failure to form attachments
Privation: Lack of any attachments due to failure to develop them during early life. It can
occur in 2 situations:
1)Isolation: One of the best known cases is Genie who was locked in her room by her father
until she was 13.5 because he thought she was retarded. When she was found she couldn’t stand
or speak and never fully recovered socially, showing disinterest in others. Her lack of recovery
could be due to her extreme isolation or the late age at which she was found. The second case is
the Czech Twins who spent the first 7 years of their lives locked up by their stepmother. They
couldn’t talk when discovered, but by the age of 14 after being cared for properly, they
functioned normally both socially and intellectually. By 20 they were of above average
intelligence and had excellent relationships with their foster families. However they were
discovered earlier and had each other, which Genie didn’t, and we don’t know if Genie was
retarded from birth.
2)Institutional care: Children who are in institutions are likely to experience privation and a
number of studies have looked at the affect of institutionalisation (results of institutional care).
One includes the longitudinal study conducted by Hodges & Tizard (1989) who followed a
group of 65 children from childhood to adolescence, who had been placed in institutional care
since 4 months old. By 4, 24 were adopted, 15 returned home and rest remained in care.
Assessments at 8 and 16 involved interviews. Most were eventually adopted or returned home,
but 70% ‘did not care about anyone’. The group who were fostered were more likely to form
attachments than those who returned home, concluding that early privation had negative
impacts on ability to form attachment later on.
A second important study is Rutter et al (2007) who studied Romanian orphanages in eastern
Europe. They studied 100 4, 6 and 11 year olds and found that children adopted into good
families at 6 months showed normal emotional development but children adopted after 6
months had problems with piers, and some developed disinhibited attachments (over friendly
towards strangers, and seek attention).
The effects of privation and institutionalisation:
Attachment disorder: Children with this have no preferred attachment figure, an inibility to
interact and relate to others. There are two types: Reactive or inhibited (shy, withdrawn and
unable to cope) or disinhibited (over friendly).
Poor parenting: Quinton et al (1984) compared a group of 50 women's who had been reared
in institutions with a control group of 50 women, reared at home. In their 20’s, the women
struggled to act as parents, with more of the ex-institution women having kids who had spent
time in care.
Deprivation dwarfism: Children in institutions are usually physically small, and one
suggestion is that this is due to a lack of emotional care. Gardner (1972) supported this through
many cases including the study of girl who was born with a disorder which meant she had to be
fed through a tube, and her mother was so scared of dislodging it, she never cuddled her. At 8
months this child was physically stunted and admitted to hospital, where she thrived on the
attention and return home normal.
Evaluation: Privation alone can’t be the only factor which leads to abnormal functioning,
displayed by Romanian orphans, of which 1/3 recovered well. Secondly we do not know to
what extent the effects of privation extended into adult life, so privation may not mean people
can’t recover.
 The impact of day care
Negative effects on social development: Bowlby said prolonged separation of infant and mother
could cause long term maladjustments, and many studies into day care have supported this,
including the meta analysis by Violata & Russell (1994) who found kids in regular day care
(more than 20h a week), were negatively affected by it.
Increased aggressiveness: The NICHD (1991) in America started a longitudinal study of over
1000 children from diverse families, from 10 different locations. The children and parents were
assessed in regular intervals. When they were studied at 5, the more time a child spent in day
care, the more adults rated them as disobedient. Children in full-time day care were up to 3x
more likely to show behaviour problems than those cared for at home. The same children were
studied again in 2007 by Belsky et al, and found at the end of their primary education, there was
still a link between day care and aggressiveness.
Peer relations: There is evidence that children in day care are likely to be less securely
attached, leading us to expect they’re going to have less successful peer relations.
Positive effects on social development: Good day care can provide social stimulation which they
infants may not have at home, because their mothers are at work, or depressed, and there are no
other kids around. Alison Clarke-Stewart (1994) studied 150 kids and found kids in day care were
more socially advanced (independent and obedient) than those who stayed at home with their
mothers.
Peer relations: Day care exposes kids to peers, giving them time to develop ability to make
friends. Field (1991) found the amount of time spent in full time day care correlated to the
number of friends children had at school and Clarke-Stewart et al (1999) found children who
attended day care could negotiate better with peers.
Weaknesses:
Evaluating day care research
Aggression & day care: Not all studies support idea that more time spent in day care, the more
likely a child is going to be aggressive. Prodromidis et al (1995) studied Swedish first borns and
concluded that childcare arrangements were not associated with aggression. Also findings from
the NICHD study can be presented differently and show a different side of day care, for example
83% of infants who spent 10 to 30 hours in day care didn’t show high levels of aggression. Also
high maternal education and family income are linked to lower aggression levels, suggesting
there are other risk factors which strongly affect a child’s development. Lastly, the findings from
the NICHD study don’t show that day care caused aggression, but that there was a link.
Peer relations & day care: Can’t assume day care experiences cause later sociability, only link.
Day care has no effects: There are many influences that affect child’s development, it’s
difficult to disentangle the direct impacts. Clarke-Stewart (1985) concluded that while day care
had some direct impacts, they were not operating alone.
Mediating factors
Quality of care: People believe that day care may be harmful because of physical separation
from the primary attachment figure, however if suitable substitute care is provided there may be
no ill effects. However it is unlikely that day care staff will have the same level of commitment
as parents, which has been supported by Howles & Hamilton (1992) found secure attachment
occurred with only 50% of day care staff , but 70% with mothers.
Individual differences: Some children find day care harder to cope with than others.
Childs age & number of hours: Gregg et al (2005) found kids under 18 months placed in day
care were more likely to suffer, but Clarke-Stewart (1994) found no difference.
 Implications of research
Attachment research has lead to major changes in visiting arrangements for
parents with children in hospital and affected institutional care, such as foster
homes. Another application is the changes in adoption, where in the past
mothers were encouraged to keep the baby for a significant period of time, but
now we know that will mean the attachment is broken, affecting the child later
on. Another application can be applied to improving day care, which the Soho
family centre took on and used to adapt their day care program.
Day care research has lead to the realisation that high quality day care is
associated with positive outcomes. This has led to the identification of 4
qualities day care centres will need to posses to provide good care. The first is a
lower child-to-staff ration, so sensitive care can be provided. The second is
minimal staff turnovers so the children can form secondary attachments
successfully. Thirdly sensitive emotional care needs to be provided. Lastly
qualified staff need to be employed, to ensure quality care. The availability of
quality care in monitored in a number of ways. Firstly it’s controlled legally
with minimum staffing rations and minimum qualification levels. Secondly day
care nurseries are inspected by Ofsted to ensure everything is up to standard.
Finally the UK government initiated the Sure Start program aiming to deliver
top-quality care.