Slides of the psychology AQA A LEVEL attachment topic.

1. Psychology AQA A Level Knowledge Organizer Attachment Year 12 Term 2 Page 1
Introduction
to
Attachment
Caregiver-Infant Interaction
Reciprocity- attachment behaviour is
reciprocal in that mother and infant
respond to each other’s signals.
Interactional synchrony- mother and infant
reflect actions in a synchronized way
Evaluation
• Hard to know what infants are
thinking- can’t really tell if mother-
infant interactions actually have
special meaning
• Observations don’t tell us the
purpose behind synchrony and
reciprocity
• Inconsistent findings on fathers-
can’t answer what the role of the
father actually is
• Why aren’t children without fathers
different?
Explanations
of
Attachment:
Learning
Theory
Classical Conditioning
UCS= food, UCR= happiness, NS= mother
Evaluation
• Counter evidence from Harlow’s
research on contact comfort. Food
may not be the main driver.
• Ignores factors such as reciprocity
and interactional synchrony-
important in developing attachment
• Counter evidence- Schaffer &
Emerson. Babies attached to mother
despite other carers feeding them.
Operant Conditioning
Positive reinforcement- baby is reinforced
for crying by the mother appearing
Negative reinforcement- tending to the
baby removes the crying sound for mother
The Role of the Father
Grossman- attachment to mothers (not
fathers) was related to children’s later
attachments. Fathers have a role to do
with play rather than nurturing.
Field- when fathers are primary caregivers,
they can be a nurturing attachment figure.
Attachment as Secondary Drive
Sears- food first, attachment second
Explanations
of
Attachment:
Bowlby’s
Monotropic
Theory
A- adaptation. Babies cannot look after
themselves, evolved to attach for survival
S- social releasers. Cute behaviours from
babies that encourage care.
C- critical period. 2 years of age.
M- monotropy. Primary attachment figure
most important. Law of continuity, law of
accumulated separation.
I- internal working model. Representation
of love based on first attachment.
Evaluation
• Support for internal working model-
Bailey. 99 mothers, attachment style
to their child the same as theirs was
to their mothers.
• Mixed evidence for monotropy-
Schaffer and Emerson. Multiple
attachments.
• Monotropy is a socially sensitive
idea- burden of responsibility.
Schaffer’s
Stages of
Attachment
Key Study
Schaffer & Emerson- 60 Glaswegian babies
from working class families. Mothers
interviewed monthly and babies observed
for separation & stranger anxiety.
Evaluation
• Limited sample characteristics-
culture bias, and from one social
class. Child rearing styles vary across
cultures.
• Longitudinal design- more control
over confounding variable of
individual differences. Increased
internal validity.
• Conflicting evidence on multiple
attachments- no single agreement
between psychologists on when this
happens.
Stages of Attachment
1. Asocial- first few weeks. Don’t
distinguish between objects & humans
2. Indiscriminate- 2-7 months. Prefer
people over objects but will accept
comfort from any adult.
3. Specific- 7 moths. Stranger &
separation anxiety now evident.
4. Multiple- shortly after specific, babies
form secondary attachments.
Ainsworth’s
Strange
Situation
Controlled obs, judging 5 behaviours;
proximity seeking, exploration and secure-
base behaviour, stranger anxiety,
separation anxiety, response to reunion.
7 stage process- exploration, stranger
interaction, alone with stranger, caregiver
returns, child alone, stranger returns,
caregiver returns.
3 types of attachment:
• Secure (Type B)- explore happily, return
regularly, moderate separation and
stranger anxiety. Comforted by reunion.
• Insecure-Avoidant (Type A)- explore
freely, little to no stranger or separation
anxiety. No comfort needed at reunion.
• Insecure-Resistant (Type C)- less
exploration, huge stranger & separation
distress, not comforted at reunion.
Evaluation
• Support for validity- can explain
subsequent outcomes (impact on
later relationships)
• Good inter-rater reliability, due to
controlled conditions and
operationalised behavioural
categories.
• Test may be culture-bound-
Takahashi. Test doesn’t work in
Japan due to mothers rarely
separated from infant, so rushed in
at reunion. Unable to observe
infant’s response. Imposed etic.
• More than one attachment type-
disorganised attachment. Mix of all
3 other attachment types.
Animal
Studies of
Attachment
Lorenz- geese, imprinting. Imprinted on
first moving thing they saw- Lorenz or their
mother. Continued throughout life- mating
behaviour. Importance of critical period.
Harlow- rhesus monkeys, contact comfort.
Wire (with food) & cloth mother (no food).
Monkeys preferred cloth; attachment
behaviour based on contact comfort.
Evaluation
• Generalisability- different
attachment behaviour in humans.
Lacks external validity.
• Theoretical value- Harlow
contradicted learning theory.
• Ethical issues- long-lasting effects on
the animals involved.

2. Psychology AQA A Level Knowledge Organizer Attachment Year 12 Term 2 Page 2
Cultural
Variations in
Attachment
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg: meta-
analysis of studies using the strange
situation across 8 different countries. Type
B always most common, but proportions
varied (e.g. 50% in China, 75% in Britain).
Type C more common in collectivist than
individualist cultures. Type A more
common in individualist than collectivist.
More variation within countries than
between countries.
Evaluation
• Large samples in Van Ijzendoorn and
Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis.
Population validity.
• Samples used may not be
representative of culture, but
instead represent different
countries
• Imposed etic- Takahashi. Test
doesn’t work in Japan due to
mothers rarely separated from
infant, so rushed in at reunion.
Unable to observe infant’s response.
Institution-
alisation
Rutter et al- ERA Study
Followed 165 Romanian orphans adopted
in Britain. Physical, cognitive and emotional
development assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and
15. Later adoption lead to lower IQ
(adopted before 6 months, IQ= 102,
adopted after 2 years, IQ= 71). Children
adopted after 6 months old more likely to
have disinhibited attachments (clingy,
indiscriminate, attention-seeking).
Evaluation
• Practical value in institutions- now
avoid having large numbers of
caregivers for each child, now
assigning key workers.
• Romanian orphanages are not
typical- due to policies, they were
overcrowded, understaffed and
under funded.
• Too soon to be sure of long term
effects in adulthood. No research
beyond teenage years.
• Romanian orphans have fewer
confounding variables (e.g. neglect,
abuse) as most were ‘abandoned’ at
birth.
Simonelli et al: used strange situation to
assess attachment in Italy. 50% Type B,
36% Type A. Concluded lower rates of type
B due to mothers now more likely to work.
Zeenah et al- Bucharest Early Intervention
Project
Used strange situation to assess
attachment in 95 children aged 12-31
months, spent most of life in institutional
care. Only 19% were securely attached.
65% classified with disorganized
attachment.
Jin et al: carried out a study in South Korea
using the Strange Situation to assess 87
children. Type C more common than UK.
Bowlby’s
Theory of
Maternal
Deprivation
Theory
Separation is different from deprivation.
Should be no extended separation (leads to
maternal deprivation) between child and
mother during the first 30 months. Critical
period- inevitable damage. Goldfarb- lower
IQ in deprived children. Bowlby argued this
may also lead to affectionless psychopathy.
Evaluation
• Lewis- replicated 44 thieves study on
a larger scale (500 young people).
Early prolonged separation did not
predict criminality or affectionless
psychopathy
• Critical period more of a sensitive
period- with good aftercare, ‘damage’
can be reversed
• Animal studies support maternal
deprivation ideas- Harlow
• Bowlby didn’t distinguish between
deprivation and privation
• Bowlby conducted interviews himself
in the 44 thieves study. Opportunities
for researcher bias as well as social
desirability bias.
Effects of Institutionalisation
Delayed intellectual development &
disinhibited attachments
Influence of
Early
Attachment
on Later
Relationships
Internal working model – based on first
attachment, template for future
relationships.
Evaluation
• Mixed evidence on continuity of
attachment. Zimmerman- very little
relationship between quality of
infant and adolescent attachments.
• Most research based on self-report
from parents/participants to assess
childhood attachment type. Social
desirability bias.
• Correlation is not causation.
• Indirect evidence about internal
working model- cannot directly
observe it.
Key Study: Bowlby’s 44 Thieves
44 teenagers accused of stealing. Families
interviewed to establish prolonged
maternal separation. ‘Thieves’ interviewed
for signs of affectionless psychopathy. 14
characterized as affectionless psychopaths,
12 of which had experienced prolonged
maternal separation in first 2 years of their
lives. Only 5 of the thieves not affectionless
psychopaths had experienced separation.
Suggests prolonged separation/deprivation
leads to affectionless psychopathy.
Later Childhood
Kerns- type B= better friendships
Myron-Wilson & Smith- type A= bullying
victims, type C= bullies
Romantic Partners
Hazan and Shaver- type B= long lasting
relationships, type A= fear of intimacy,
type C= jealous
Parental
Bailey et al- attachment type matched that
to their mothers