attachment-

Caregiver infant-
Reciprocity- when babies go through alert phases and copy the movements of
the mother or vise versa to establish a connection, From 3 months close
attention is played to verbal and physical signals (Feldman 2007).
Interactional synchrony- “ the temporal coordination of micro level social
behavior (Feldman 2007)- (Meltzoff and more saw this in two week olds)- Isabella
et al, 30 mother infants, synchrony is better quality relation
EV-
Hard to know what’s happening when observing infants- Gratier 2003- hard to
know if voluntary movements or involuntary
Controlled observation capture detail- research filmed meaning it can be
analyzed in more detail and due to awareness of baby, no behavior changes with
camera
Observations don’t show purpose of sync and reciprocity- Feldman 2012 , only
describes behaviors, does not explain why they are helpful in development

Attachment figures-
Parent infant- Shaffer and Emmerson- most become attached to mother in 7
months, then form more connections around 10 months including father- 75%
completed this by 18 months
Role of father- Grossman 2002- longitudinal study into attachment to parents-
adolescent attachment based on mother attachment, fathers quality of play
increased attachment
Father PCG- Tiffany Field- 4 month old babies face to face with PCG mothers,
secondary CG fathers and PCG fathers- PCGS did more reciprocity- fathers can be
attachment figure
EV-
Inconsistent finding on fathers- no decision as to weather father can replace a
maternal model or not
Children with two fathers- real world difference- MacCallum- same sex parents do
not effect development
Socially sensitive research- working mothers

Schaffers stages
Shaffer and Emmerson- Glasgow study- 60 babies- 31 male- 29 female. Visited
every month for the first year then again at 18 months- used self report to
measure how children reacted to parents leaving- 40 weeks 80% specific
attachment, 30% multiple
EV-
Good external validity- carried out in familiar environment, observation done by
parent
Longitudinal- higher internal validity- no confounding variables such as ppt
variables
Limited sample characteristics- sample of 60 was good but families involved
where from same class and district
Temporal- over 50 years ago

Stages of attachment- S1, Asocial (first week) behavior to human and non human
the same, S2 indiscriminate attachment 2-7 months- display more social
behavior- prefer people over objects, especially familiar, S3 specific attachment
at 7 months- anxiety toward strangers and from an adult usually bio mother 65%
of time, S4 multiple attachments- shortly after babies show secondary
attachments- 29% showed within a month of form in primary
EV-
Problems studying asocial- that age shows immobile babies, meaning hard to
measure based on observation
Conflicting evidence to multiple attachments- Bowlby’s monotopic theory, CP Van
Ijzendorm showed more connections can happen from the outset
Measuring multiple attachment problem with measuring

Animal studies-
Lorenz- Imprinting- half eggs hatched with mother, half hatched with Lorenz-
control group followed mother, experimental group followed Lorenz- if chicks did
not find in critical period they would not imprint.
Sexual imprinting- Lorenz 1952 studied a peacock that had attraction to
tortoises as he had been raised with them
EV-
Generalizable to humans- can generalize as mammals are different to avian
species, therefore show more emotional connection
Research legitimacy- Guiton et al- chickens imprint on gloves, but learn to prefer
chickens meaning imprinting is not permanent

Harlow-
importance of contact comfort- 16 baby Rehus monkeys, two wire mothers- one
cloth covered one did milk- monkeys preferred contact comfort
Maternally deprived monkeys as adults- monkeys with wore mother only where
more aggressive, less social and bred less- some deprived even rejected and
killed their young- Critical period for normal development- Harlow stated 90 days
for monkey

EV-
Theoretical value- showed attachment from comfort not food, also highlighted
importance of early contact for later ability to connect in life, linking to
blueprinting theory by Bowlby
Practical value- real application to social workers (howe 1998) and for zoos
raising captive monkeys
Ethical issues- Monkeys suffered greatly, and since monkey species close enough
to humans to generalize, the suffering can be generalized to humans too. CP-
research was important enough to justify effects

Attachment- learning theory (Dollard and miller cupboard love)

Classical conditioning- Food is US, being fed = pleasure (UR). The caregiver
starts as NS however baby associates caregiver with food making them CS. Once
this occurs, seeing caregiver gives the UR (now CR) of love
Operant- behaviors are reinforced through positive reinforcement, such as crying
will equal a response, when the response is correct, the behavior is reinforced.
The caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops
Attachment as secondary drive- hunger is an innate biological motivator- Sears
et al says PCG gives food, meaning primary drive becomes associated with them
too, creating a secondary drive
EV-
Counter evidence from animal research- young animals don’t imprint on those
who feed them, Lorenz. Harlow’s monkeys didn’t either
Counter evidence from human research- Shaffer and Emmerson- primary
attachment to bio mothers even Tho other carers did most feeding
Learning theory ignores other factors- learning theory ignores reciprocity
(Feldman) and Interactional synchrony (Isabella)- research also shows
attachment strongest with most sensitive carer

Bowlby’s theory-
Monotropic theory- monotropy says attachment given to one figure (PCG)-
attachment to the PCG needs to occur, PCG does not have to be mother- Law of
continuity- constant and predictable care means better attachment, Law of
accumulated separation- every separation adds up and the safest dose is a zero
dose
Social releasers and critical period- babies have innate cute behaviors because
they encourage attachment via reciprocal- interplay builds attachment in early
weeks of life, but the CP was identified at 2 years when the infant attachment
system is active
IWM- Mental representation of relationships with PCG act as a blueprint for future
relations

EV-
Mixed evidence for monotropy- Not supported by Shaffer and Emmerson- some
babies can form multiple attachments at the same time, studies also show that
the PCG attachment is only important, not unique (Suess) . This could just mean
its stronger
Support for social releasers- Brazelton et al- interactional synchrony shown
through observation where mothers would ignore baby and see if they become
unhappy
Support for IWM- supported by Bailey et al- ii mothers with one year old babies-
qualities assessed through standard interviews and observation- mothers with
poor attachment had poor attachment to parents- (MAY SHOW DEMAND
CHARECTERISTICS)
Socially sensitive

Strange situation Ainsworth-

Procedure- Controlled observation to see
Proximity seeking, exploration and secure base behavior, stranger anxiety,
separation anxiety and response to reunion.
Seven episode 3 mins in length-
1- Child encouraged to explore (W PCG present)- tests exploration and secure
base
2- Stranger comes in and interacts with child- tests stranger anxiety
3- Caregiver leaves stranger together- separation and stranger anxiety
4- Caregiver returns and stranger leaves- reunion behavior and
exploration/secure base
5- Caregiver leaves child- separation
6- Stranger returns- stranger anxiety
7- PCG returns- reunion behavior
Findings- Secure attachment (SA) go back and show moderate separation and
stranger anxiety- require and accept comfort at reunion- 60-75% of children.
Insecure avoidant (IA) explore freely but don’t show secure base behavior- little
or no reaction to PCG leaving and make less effort to contact PCG on return-
Little stranger anxiety- 20-25% of children
insecure resistant (IR) seek proximity to others and explore less- massive
stranger and separation distress but resist comfort when reunited- 3% of children
EV-
Support for validity- strange situation is predictive of later development- SA likely
to be success with friends and romance where as IR likely to bully (Kokkinos)
and have mental health issues (Ward)- CP Labeling
Good reliability- inter rater reliability- different observers watch same kids and
get similar responses as behavioral categories where easily observable- Bick
tested strange situation observers and found 94% agreement
Test may be culture bound- Takahashi- test does not work in Japan as mothers
are rarely if not ever separated, therefore when they where, they where frantic to
reunite meaning response was hard to observe

Culture variations-
KS- Van Ijzendorm- SA, IA and IR attachment across cultures, and within cultures-
meta analysis of 32 strange situations- 15 US, 1990 children observed.- they
found wider variation between studies however SA was always the most
common- proportion varied from GB 75% to CCP 50%- IR ranged from GB 3% to
ISR 30%- was some variance, one found 46% US SA where as another found 90%
Simonella- conducted study to see if data still matches previous data- 76 12
month olds and found 50% SA, 36% IA, showing a lower rate in SA children, due
to economic changed
Conclusion- SA is norm in wide range of cultures supporting Bowlby however
culture does have influence
EV-
large samples- Van Ijzendorm used near 2000 babies, even SImonella had a large
sample, meaning the results are more valid
Samples tend to be unrepresentative of culture- comparisons where between
countries not cultures- therefore these should have been done in for example
western V eastern ( shown by Sagi)
Methos of assessment biased- may be imposed etic as strange situation was
designed by American (Ainsworth) based on British theory- Bowlby

Bowlby- maternal deprivation

Separation versus deprivation- separation means child is not in presence of PCG,
this only is issue when element of care is lost. Depreciation is when extended
periods of PCG occur
Critical period- first 30 months is CP- if not formed, psychological damage
inevitable
Effects on development- Intellectual development can be characterized by low IQ
and has been found in studies of adoption by Goldfarb. Emotional development
can be effected as Bowlby characterized the affectionless psychopath as the
inability to experience guilt or strong emotion for others
44 thieves- sample of 44 criminal teens interviewed for signs of affectionless
psychopathy- families also interview to determine attachment- a CG of non
criminal emotionally disturbed people was used to see how often maternal
separation/deprivation occurred in those who weren’t thieves.
Found that 14/44 where affectionless psychopaths and that of this 14, 12 had
prolonged separation in the CP- only 5 of the remaining thieves have
experienced separation- in control only 2 out of 44 had experience deprivation. It
was concluded long separation causes affectionless psychopathy
EV-
Evidence is poor- Goldfarb only looked at poor qualify orphanages, with poor
after care therefore these factors may have effected them, similarly children
growing up in poor quality institutions where deprived of a lot not just maternal
care- 44 thieves also has serious design flaws, mainly bias, as Bowlby carried out
experiment himself
Counter evidence- Hilda Lewis- replicated 44 thieves and found that separation
does not predict criminality
CP is actually more of a sensitive period- damage is not irreversible, showed by
Koluchova, who found 2 Czech boys isolated from 18 months to 7 years- both
fully recovered

Romanian orphan studies- Rutter

Rutters ERA (English-Romanian adoptee) study
Rutter followed 165 Orphans adopted from Romania to Britan to test extent early
experiences can be repaired. Physical cognitive and emotional development was
assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15. 52 British adoptees acted as the control group
Differences where identified for those under vs over 6 months. For those after 6
months demonstrated disinhibited attachment, showing attention seeking,
clinginess and social behavior directed indiscriminately towards all adults both
familiar and unfamiliar- in contrast those under 6 months rarely showed this
Bucharest EIP (early intervention project)- Zeanah
Asseseed 95 children in institutional car (90% of life on avg) using strange
satiation and career interview. Control was 50 who had never lived in institutions
They found CG had a 74% SA where as experimental group showed 19% with 65
being disorganized attachment- disinhibited applied to 44% of experimental
group vs less than 20 % of control
Effects of institutionalization-
Disinhibited attachment- Rutter- friendly to all, no stranger anxiety
Mental retardation- Low IQ
EV-
Real life application- showed effects of institutionalization and improvements on
how we can care in them (Langton)- children have key workers now to avoid
disinhibited attachment
Fewer extraneous variables than other orphan studies- most trauma adoptee
studies struggle to separate institutional effects from trauma effects with factors
working as confounding participant variables, where as Romanian orphans could
be studied without this, increasing IV
Romanian orphanages where not normal- Although institutional data was
recorded, conditions where so bad it cannot be generalized to all institutions

Attachment in later relationships-

IWM- quality of child’s first attachment is crucial because it provides a template
for future relationships and can effect being too emotionally invested or
withdrawn
Relationships in later childhood- attachment type effects attachment to peers. SA
go on to have best quality friends, where as IA have difficulties (Kerns). It was
found by Myron-Wilson and smith that IA are most likely to be victims and IR the
bullies
Relationships in adulthood- Hazan and Shaver- analyzed 620 responses to a love
quiz in American new paper- first part assessed mot important relationship, the
second assessed love experiences and third assessed attachment- 56%
identified as SA with 25% IA and 19% IR. SA found to have longer lasting
intimacy.
Relationships in adulthood as parent- IWM can also effect parenting- attachments
can be passed down (Bailey)
EV-
evidence on continuity of attachment types is mixed- Some studies such as
McCarthy support continuity and support IWM where as Zimmerman did not
believe the IWM was important
most studied have validity issues- most studies of attachment to PCG do not use
strange situation, instead self report. Validity of these is limited as it relies on
honest and realistic view of own relationships
Association does not mean causality- there is an association with later
relationships however there are often alternative explanation, such as parenting
style or temperament