Attachment

Animal Studies of Attachment

Lorenz's Geese

Lorenz (1952) investigated how attachments form in geese.

Lorenz took a clutch of goose eggs and divided them into two groups. One group was left with the mother goose, while the other group was placed in an incubator where Lorenz would be the first moving object that they saw when they hatched.

When the eggs hatched, Lorenz imitated the sounds of a mother goose. The goslings followed him as if he were their mother. The group that hatched naturally followed the real mother goose. When the two groups were mixed together, they separated to follow their original attachment figure.

This behaviour is known as imprinting, where young animals attach to the first moving object they see.

Lorenz concluded that imprinting occurs during a critical period shortly after birth. The strongest attachment responses occurred between 12 and 17 hours after hatching, and after 32 hours imprinting was unlikely to occur. Once imprinting has occurred, it cannot be reversed.

Harlow's Monkeys

Harlow (1958) investigated whether food or comfort was more important in attachment using monkeys.

Harlow reared 16 baby monkeys with two wire model mothers, one of which was covered in cloth. In one condition, the wire mother provided milk, and in another condition, the cloth mother provided milk.

The monkeys consistently preferred to spend time with the cloth-covered mother, even when she did not provide food. When frightened, the monkeys sought comfort from the cloth mother.

The monkeys that were deprived of a real mother showed abnormal social behaviour later in life. They were more aggressive, less sociable, and struggled with mating. Some even harmed their own offspring.

Harlow concluded that attachment is based on contact comfort and emotional security rather than food.

Evaluation of Animal Studies

A strength of animal studies is that they have real-world applications. Harlow’s findings have helped improve childcare practices by emphasising the importance of early attachment and emotional care. They have also influenced animal care practices in settings such as zoos.

A limitation is that findings from animals may not generalise to humans. Human infants are more dependent and require more complex care than animal infants.

There is also a debate about whether attachment occurs during a critical or sensitive period. Research by Sluckin suggested that imprinting can still occur after the supposed critical period, indicating that it may be a sensitive period.

A further limitation concerns ethical issues. Harlow’s research caused distress and long-term harm to the monkeys, raising concerns about the ethics of such studies.

 

Explanations of Attachment

Learning Theory

Learning theory, proposed by Dollard and Miller, suggests that attachment is learned through conditioning.

Classical conditioning occurs when the baby associates the caregiver with food. The caregiver begins as a neutral stimulus, but when paired with food, which produces pleasure, the caregiver becomes a conditioned stimulus that produces pleasure on its own.

Operant conditioning occurs when a baby cries and is rewarded with food or comfort. This reinforces the crying behaviour. The caregiver is also negatively reinforced because feeding the baby stops the crying.

The concept of the secondary drive suggests that hunger is a primary drive, and because the caregiver satisfies this need, the baby forms an attachment to the caregiver.

Evaluation of Learning Theory

Animal studies challenge learning theory, as both Harlow and Lorenz showed that attachment is not based solely on food.

Bowlby argued that attachment is an innate behaviour rather than something learned through conditioning.

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that many infants formed attachments to individuals who did not provide feeding, suggesting that interaction is more important than food.

However, it is possible that conditioning may still play a role if attachment forms due to the comfort and emotional support provided by caregivers.

Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory

Bowlby (1958) proposed that attachment is an innate mechanism that increases a child’s chances of survival. Babies are born with social releasers, such as crying and smiling, which encourage caregivers to respond.

Bowlby suggested that infants form one primary attachment, known as monotropy. This bond is usually with the mother.

The child develops an internal working model, which is a mental representation of relationships based on their early attachment. This model influences future relationships.

Bowlby also proposed a critical period of around 2.5 years during which attachment must form. He later suggested a sensitive period of up to five years.

Evaluation of Monotropic Theory

Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that adult relationships were related to early attachment types, supporting the idea of an internal working model.

However, Kagan (1984) argued that attachment may be influenced by a child’s temperament, suggesting that individual differences play a role.

Hodges and Tizard (1989) found that attachments can form later in life, suggesting that early deprivation can be reversed.

 

Types of Attachment

Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (1978) was designed to assess attachment types in infants aged 9 to 18 months.

The procedure involved observing infants across eight stages, including separations and reunions with the caregiver and interactions with a stranger. Behaviours such as separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, and reunion behaviour were recorded.

Ainsworth identified three attachment types.

Secure attachment is when the child uses the caregiver as a safe base, shows moderate distress when separated, and is comforted upon reunion.

Insecure-avoidant attachment is when the child shows little distress when separated and avoids the caregiver upon return.

Insecure-resistant attachment is when the child shows high distress when separated and is not easily comforted upon reunion, often showing conflicting behaviour.

The findings showed that most children were securely attached, followed by insecure-avoidant, with insecure-resistant being the least common.

Ainsworth concluded that a caregiver’s sensitivity influences the child’s attachment type.

Evaluation of Types of Attachment

One limitation is that the classification system may be reductionist, as later research identified additional attachment types, such as disorganised attachment.

Another limitation is ethnocentrism, as the Strange Situation reflects Western child-rearing practices and may not apply to other cultures.

There are also concerns about validity, as the laboratory setting may affect behaviour.

Ethical issues may arise due to the stress caused to infants during separation.

 

Cultural Variations in Attachment

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies involving over 2,000 infants.

They found that secure attachment was the most common across all cultures. However, there were variations, such as higher levels of avoidant attachment in Germany and higher levels of resistant attachment in Japan.

They also found greater variation within cultures than between cultures.

They concluded that attachment behaviours are similar worldwide but influenced by cultural practices.

Evaluation of Cultural Variations

A strength of the research is that it used a large sample, increasing reliability.

However, the study may be biased because it compares countries rather than distinct cultures.

There were also differences in sample sizes across countries, which may distort the findings.

Further research, such as studies in Korea, supports cross-cultural similarities in attachment.

 

Maternal Deprivation

Bowlby's Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis

Bowlby proposed that continuous emotional care is essential for normal development.

He argued that prolonged separation from the mother during the critical period could lead to serious emotional and intellectual damage.

Intellectually, deprivation can lead to lower IQ.

Emotionally, deprivation can result in affectionless psychopathy, where individuals cannot form meaningful relationships and may display antisocial behaviour.

Evaluation of Maternal Deprivation

Bowlby’s 44 thieves study found a link between deprivation and affectionless psychopathy.

However, Rutter argued that deprivation should be distinguished from privation, which occurs when no attachment is formed at all.

Case studies, such as the Czech twins, show that recovery is possible, challenging the idea that damage is irreversible.

Effects of Institutionalisation

Rutter’s English and Romanian Adoptees study followed Romanian orphans adopted into the UK.

The study found that children adopted before six months showed normal development, while those adopted later showed lower IQ and emotional difficulties.

Many children showed disinhibited attachment, where they were overly friendly and attention-seeking with strangers.

Evaluation of Institutionalisation

Zeanah et al. (2005) found similar patterns of attachment difficulties in institutionalised children.

The research has important real-world applications, influencing childcare practices such as the use of foster care.

However, long-term effects are still not fully understood due to limited longitudinal data.

The study had good internal validity, as the children had not experienced prior abuse, reducing confounding variables.

 

Influence of Early Attachment on Future Relationships

Bowlby proposed that early attachment forms an internal working model, which influences future relationships.

Securely attached individuals tend to form healthy relationships, while insecurely attached individuals may experience difficulties.

Research shows that securely attached children are more likely to form strong friendships, while insecurely attached children may struggle socially.

In adulthood, secure individuals tend to have stable relationships, while avoidant individuals may struggle with intimacy and resistant individuals may show controlling behaviours.

Evaluation of Influence of Early Attachment

A limitation is that correlation does not prove causation, so early attachment may not directly cause later behaviours.

There is supporting research, such as Bailey et al. (2007), which found continuity in attachment patterns across generations.

However, studies relying on retrospective data, such as Hazan and Shaver’s research, may lack validity due to inaccurate recall.

Get all topics as one complete revision notes bundle — no printing one by one!

Get the Complete Bundle →