The document discusses various theories and studies related to attachment, including Bowlby's evolutionary theory and the learning theories of Dollard and Miller. It summarizes findings from key experiments such as Harlow's monkeys and Ainsworth's Strange Situation, highlighting different attachment styles and their implications. Additionally, it evaluates research on the effects of privation, institutional care, and daycare on child development and attachment outcomes.

1. Attachment:

2. Definition of attachment:
A strong emotional bond that is reciprocated
between two people (e.g. infant and
caregiver). Attachments are there for infants
to maintain proximity with their caregiver, as
they feel distress without one another.

3. Learning Theory of attachment –
Dollard and Miller (1950) POSSIBLAYYY
‘Attachment is based on the principles of
classical and operant conditioning.’
OPERANT: Any behaviour that creates a
positive reinforcement is repeated. E.g.
Crying gets you food, therefore babies cry.
CLASSICAL: The thing that gives pleasure, e.g.
food, becomes the conditioned stimulus –
The caregiver becomes a conditioned
stimulus by association.

4. Learning theory – Harlow and Harlow
16 Rhesus monkeys! (1962)
- Not repeatable.
- Went for comfort over
food.
- When reintroduced with
monkeys, they were
outcast.
- Ethical issues.
- Not generalisable to
humans
- Links to Bowlby
(1950’s)/Dollard & Miller
(1950)

5. Konrad Lorenz (1952)
Imprinting – a reciprocated mental image
of infant and caregiver
Critical period – 2 years for humans, 17
hours for geese.
‘the time in which an attachment must
be made’

6. Bowlby (1952)- Evolutionary
explanation of
attachment
• Innate ability to attach
• Innate = born with it
• Important to survival
• Evolutionary explanation of
attachment
• Internal working model (Taken from
Freud) – where later relationships are Social releasers
developed by primary attachment +
Parental instinct
• Monotropy – attachment to one
person (Taken from Lorenz) ATTACHMENT
• Maintaining close proximity to avoid
predation

7. Evaluating Bowlbys evolutionary
theory of attachment:
• Backed up by Harlow and • Harlow’s Monkeys
Harlow (1962) – monkey’s demonstrated privation and
showed secure attachment. isolation and not
deprivation
• Schaffer and Emerson
(1964) – Glasgow babies.
87% of the children were
attached to more than one
parents. THEREFORE NOT
MONOTROPY
However Glasgow Babies was
subjective, so is it reliable?

8. Evaluating Bowlby (1952):
SUPPORTS GOES AGAINST
• Reductionist – Explains complex
• Backed up by Dollard and behaviours in narrow terms.
Miller ‘cupboard love
•Schaffer and Emerson (1964) – Glasgow
theory’ (1950) babies.
• Backed up by Harlow and 87% of the children were attached to more
than one parents. THEREFORE NOT
Harlow with their monkeys. MONOTROPY
However Glasgow Babies was subjective, so
(1958) is it reliable?
• Backed up by Schaffer and • Rutteret al (1998-2007) found orphans
Emerson (1964) who went into institutionalised
care, who were able to form
attachments after being adopted. After
the 1st year of life – ARGUES CRITICAL
PERIOD.

9. Maccoby: (1980)
1. Proximity seeking
2. Distress on seperation
3. Joy at reunion
4. General orientation towards
each other.

10. Ainsworth (1970’s)
• Strange situation – Baltimore 1970’s
• 100 x 12-18 month children
• 7 stages
- Parent, child, enter, explore
- Stranger enter, talk to parent
- Parent leaves
- Parent returns, stranger leaves
- Parent leaves
- Stranger returns
- Parents returns, stranger leaves
• 3 types of attachment:
- Securely attached – WAAAAAAAAAH – Oh, mommy!!!
- Insecure avoidant – DON’T CARE
- Insecure resistant – I HATE YOU BUT I LOVE YOU

11. • 65% securely attached.
• 21% insecure-avoidant.
• 14% insecure-resistant.
• Shows that most of N. American children were
securely attached.
• Association between mother’s behaviour &
infants attachment type, suggesting the mother’s
behaviour may help to determine attachment
type.

12. Evaluating Ainsworth:
- Demand characteristics
+ Controlled
- Lacks ecological validity
observation (COUNTER ARGUE as it
+ Lab study COULD happen in real
life)
+ Easily replicated =
- Ethical issues (protection
reliable from harm/lack of
+ Interrater reliability consent)
due to repeats, and - Ethnocentric with
psychologists with Americans.
similar opinions. - (COUNTER ARGUE) as was
repeated in different
countries which leads to…

13. Van Ijzendoorn&Kroonenberg 1988 –
meta-analysis
Country Secure % Ins. Resistant % Ins. Avoidant %
USA 65 21 14
Great Brit. 75 22 3
Israel 64 7 29
Japan 68 5 27
China 50 25 25

14. Evaluating Van Ijzendoorn and
Kroonenberg
• Consistency throughout • The sample size isn’t
the nations. stated for example,
Chinese study only had
36 ppts.
• Cultures and classes of
the ppts may not be
generalizable due to
cultural relativism.
• Demand characteristics
due to setting

15. • Cultural relativism: • Cultural differences:
Whether the behaviour is Whether cultures are the
relative to that particular same or similar or not…
culture or not.

16. Key terms:
Disruption of attachment/separation:
If the infant is separated from his/hers attachment figure.
Privation:
Lack of something. Emotional privation – lack of attachment. Physical
privation – lack of basic need. Food/shelter.
Deprivation:
Deprived of something. Not having something. Could be LOSS of
attachment/breaking of an emotional bond.
Institutionalisation/institutional care:
To put someone in care.
Separation:
Being physically set apart from something e.g. one’s caregiver.

17. Hodges and Tizard (1989)
Aim: Effects of privation &instatutionalise care.
Procedure: Longitudinal, natural experiment.
65 children who’d been institutionalised from less than 4 months.
No attachments were formed.
When the children were 4:
- 24 had been adopted
- 15 returned home
- Rest remained in institution (control group)
At ages 8 and 16, the children were interviewed those who were
adopted, and those who’d returned home.
Findings: Adopted children generally had close attachments & good
relationships. However adopted & home groups both seeked
approval from adults more so than the ‘control’ group.
Conc: Shows recovery is possible in the right circumstances.

18. Hodges and Tizard (1989) evaluation:
• In a natural experiment, • Longitudinal study, so
it’s easy to conduct. there may have been
• There are no ethical attrition. Leaving a bias
issues with natural sample, and not
experiment – not very necessarily
invasive. generalisable.
• Proves Bowlby as it • Random allocation of
shows that early children – more
privation effects attractive, or more
relationships. sociable may have been
picked first.

19. Rutteret al (‘98-2007) – Romanian
orphans.
Aim: To see whether attachments are effected by
institutionalisation.
Procedure: 100 Romanian orphans were assessed at 4, 6 and
11.
Adopted at either:
6 months
6-24 months
Or after 24 months.
Findings: Children adopted by British families before the age
of six months showed ‘normal’ development.
However, children adopted after six months, showed
disinhibited attachment.
Conclusion: Long term consequences are less severe if the
child has a chance to form an attachment.

20. Rutteret al (‘98-2007) Romanian
Children – evaluation.
• Backs up • Children were all
Bowlby’s/Lorenz’s originally from
critical period, as Romania. Ethnocentric?
stronger attachments • Adopted all by British
were formed with the families. Culturally bias?
children adopted before
6 months.
Created: disinhibited attachments =
Children who don’t form one strong
attachment, and just form lots of little
ones.

21. Long term privation:
1) Curtiss – Genie (1977)
- Beaten, tied to a potty, thought of to be
mentally disabled, lived with psychologists, did
not recover.
2) Koluchová – Czech Twins(1972, 77, 91)
- They had each other, 18 months in institute,
then step mum, who locked them away.
Deprived of food etc. Small, could barely talk.
HOWEVER, recovered well, and both are
married and live ‘normal’ lives.

22. Evaluate long term privation studies:
• Qualitative data • MAY NOT be generalizable
• High validity • Genie went to live with
psychologist
• Links to critical period –
• Ethical issues – no consent,
Bowlby. no right to withdraw,
- Evolutionary (Genie) protection from harm.
- Against evolutionary • Confidentiality – Genie
theory. (Twins) • Not reliable, can’t replicate
• High eco. Validity • Psychologists can exploit
these case studies
• Reliant on anecdotal
evidence (passing on of
stories)

23. 6 pt. rule for privation and deprivation:
A01: A02:
Genie – Curtiss ‘77: Genie:
- Locked in room. Thought to be retarded. - Confidentiality.
- Lacks speech. - No right to withdraw.
- IQ remained low.
- Lived with psychologist. Case studies:
- Lots of detail
Hodges and Tizard: - May not be generalizable
- 65 British children under 4. - Ecologically valid
- Don’t form attachments. - Not reliable
- Privation.
- Adopt, return home, remain. Bias:
- Subjective
Czech Twins – Koluchová ‘72-’91: - Objective
- Left in basement for 18 months,
emotional privation at adopted family SUBJECTIVE = Opinions/thoughts
house.
- Special case (twins – had each other) OBJECTIVE = Scientific.
- Goes against internal working model.

24. DAY CARE!
Day Care: Nursery:
• Any care given by someone • 26-40 children.
other than your primary • Aged 2-5.
caregiver. • Divided into groups based
on age.

25. Good quality day care:
• High staff:children ratio.
• Low staff turnover. – Penelope Leach!
• High quality training.
• Good physical provisions for the children.
• Mixed ages of children.

26. Penelope Leach – a study into good day care
FCCC (families, children, childcare) (1998)
• 1200 Children (+ families)
• N. London & Oxfordshire. (varied from near-poverty to
more wealthy families = a good range!)
• Longitudinal.
• Conclusion: Children looked after by mothers do better.
Babies and toddlers in nursery did worst, and kids
looked after by a childminder did second best.
• Clarke-Stewart et al (1994) found children in group
based day care were better at negotiation.
• Harvey (1999) reached similar conclusions.
• Only tested N.London& Oxfordshire, not generalizable.
• Longitudinal = attrition.

27. EPPE Project – Effective provision of pre-
school education Sylvia et al (2003):
Aim: Studying impact of intellectual and social
development of children.
Procedures: Studied 3000 children, from 141 pre-school
centres (day-care, volenteernurserys etc)
Children assessed at 3 and 4 years old.
Findings: Pre-school children improved cognitive
development compared to ‘home children’.
Risks of anti-social behaviours at high-quality pre-
school.
Disadvantaged children did best along side variations
of advantaged and disadvantaged children.
Conclusion: Pre-school can have a positive impact on
intellectual and social development.

28. EPPE Evaluation:
• Children were tested • Critics argued it wasn’t
from suburban and widespread enough
rural areas, giving a (only in N.London and
good range of ethnic Oxford)
diversity and • Bryson et al (2006)
backgrounds. found 1.3million
• Locally and nationally families couldn’t find
tested. childcare when needed.

29. Does Day Care cause aggression?
No Yes
• Jay Belsky was counter • Cole and Cole (1996)
argued by NICHD 1991, as suggested children are more
they stated that the 17% of aggressive.
aggression was within the • Jay Belsky (2001), showed
normal range. that 17% of children
• Campbell and Brownell also receiving day care were
questioned the true aggressive as opposed to
definition of ‘aggression’. the 6% who hadn’t received
day care.

30. Does day care effect peer
relationships?
Better peer relationships: Worse peer relationships:
• Clarke-Stewart (1994) day- • Unless securely attached…
care children = better at Securely attached = more
negotiation. popular (Sroufeet al 2005).
• Creps and Vernon (1999) • 20+ hours of day-care
start day care before 6 before the age of 1 = more
months = more sociable likely to be insecure.
peer relationships.