  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Development and types of attachment
|
Development and variety of attachments
This topic looks at the formation of childhood attachments, what happens if these attachments are not formed, or are broken and finally on the affects that day care provision has on cognitive and emotional development. Most text books seem as confused as I am about the first section which seems to flit around all over the place. In an attempt to give it some structure I’ll break it down into the following sections: 1. What are attachments? 2. Why do we form attachments? 3. When do we form attachments? 4. What kind of attachments do we form? 5. How many attachments do we form?
What are attachments? Becoming attached to a person suggests that you have formed a close bond or friendship with them. Although this topic concentrates on early attachments we clearly go on forming new ones throughout life, with friends, work colleagues etc., as well as attachments of lerrrrrve (he said adopting his 70s porn star accent) but lower sixth are considered by the Board to be too young for such things! Schaffer (1993) defines attachments as: ‘A close emotional relationship between two persons, characterised by mutual affection and a desire to maintain proximity.’ In a similar vein, Maccoby (1980) describes four characteristics of an attachment:
These will be discussed later when we look at the work of Mary Ainsworth.
This is best broken into short term (immediate) benefits and longer term benefits. Both, to some extent, can be explained in terms of benefits to the reproductive success of the species or individual (depending whether you favour Darwin or Dawkins; for the biologists). Short term benefits Most species emerge into the world unable to fend for themselves so require lots of assistance in the early stages of life. This is particularly true of the human infant who isn’t capable of fending for his or herself for many years. Forming a close attachment with a caregiver therefore ensures that the offspring will be fed, protected from harm, educated in various techniques of survival and kept warm. It seems likely that the infant’s need to form an attachment is innate. It is also worth considering that it is also in the interests of the parent(s) to protect their offspring from harm. Again in evolutionary terms they, particularly the mother, have invested a lot of time and energy in producing offspring, it is in their best interests to see the fruits of their labours reach maturity and reproduce themselves. It therefore seems likely that adults also have an innate tendency to form attachments with their offspring.
Long term benefits These are not so immediately apparent. Bowlby (1969) proposed that early attachments provide a template or schema, or a set of expectations that allow us to build other attachments later in life. He called this template the ‘internal working model.’
Evaluation of the Love Unfortunately, in terms of what it tells us, but fortunately, in terms of you answering questions about it, the Love Quiz is a poor piece of research. Asked to criticise it, choose from the mouth watering selection of criticisms below: Self selecting sample: the participants volunteered after reading an advert in the Rocky Mountain News. This is a poor way of selecting participants since you are not getting a cross section of the public. Using this sampling technique, for example, you are going to get people with an ‘axe to grind’ or with extremes of experience or opinion. Questionnaire: People tend not to answer truthfully, particularly on issues of relationships, instead wanting to make themselves look good. Retrospective: As we saw in memory our recollection of past events is not reliable, so it seems unlikely that people’s memory of their childhood experiences will be accurate. Cause and effect: The researchers have shown a relationship between early attachments and later ones and are assuming that the childhood experience has caused the adult experience. However, other factors could be involved. Kagan (1984) suggested the temperament hypothesis. Children with a pleasant disposition are more likely to form warm relationships with parents and later in life, assuming they maintain their ‘niceness’, will form more loving relationships again.
Other evidence for a link between early attachments and later ones is provided by Quinton et al (1988) who looked at women who had spent their early life in institutions and been unable to form attachments themselves. Later in life they made poor parents, being unable to form close bonds with their own children.
There are two main theories as to when we form attachments:
Stage theory as proposed by Schaffer and Emerson (1964) This was based on their Glasgow babies study (outlined below), and concludes that human infants progress through 3 stages of attachment.
Evaluation of Shaffer and Emerson’s Stage Theory Most evidence seems to favour the concept of attachments forming in stages like this, for example the work of Mary Ainsworth (yes, yet another lady psychologist).
However, some research suggests that children in the first few weeks of life are not as asocial as Schaffer and Emerson suggested. Carpenter (1975) found that infants only a few days old respond differently to their mother than they do to others, i.e. they spend longer looking at their mother than they do at others
Critical period as proposed by Konrad Lorenz This idea comes from the work of ethologists on non-human animals, particularly birds. Just as physical characteristics of various species develop at certain stages of growth, the ethologists claim that perhaps attachments will only form during similar critical periods. The most famous examples of this are birds forming attachments to the first thing they see upon hatching. Think of the cutie duckling in Tom and Jerry. Ethologists refer to the phenomenon as imprinting. It has the following characteristics:
Evidence Konrad Lorenz (1935) split a clutch of goose eggs and got half to be hatched by their mother and the rest were placed in an incubator and saw Konrad on hatching. The second group subsequently followed Konrad everywhere and became distressed if they were separated from him. Immelmann (1972) imprinted newly hatched zebra finches on Bengalese finches. Later in life the zebra finches ‘preferred’ to mate with Bengalese finches rather than their own species.
Most criticisms of the imprinting or critical period theory however, are based on its application to humans. Few would argue for such a rigid period of attachments in humans. However, some, for example Bowlby, have argued for a ‘watered down’ version, referred to as a sensitive period. The idea being that there is a time in an infant’s life when it is most likely to form an attachment, but it can continue to form them outside this period. Bowlby argued that our need to form attachments was innate and would occur in the sensitive period between the ages of 1 and 3 years.
Skin to skin hypothesis Klaus and Kennel (1976) looked at two groups of newly born infants:
One month later when they returned to the hospital mothers in group two were found to cuddle their babies more and make greater eye contact. The effects were still noticeable a year later. Chateau and Wiberg (1977) found that mothers who were allowed to handle their unwashed babies at birth and breast fed showed more affectionate behaviour towards the child later and breast fed for an average 2 months longer than ‘traditional contact’ mothers. Evaluation
(Note that this is another one of those ‘catch-all’ evaluation comments that can be applied in any situation when participants are chosen from a narrow grouping, e.g. students).
Even in non-human animal species it seems that imprinting is more flexible than Konrad Lorenz thought. Sluckin (1965) believes that the sensitive period is a time when a young animal is most likely to form an attachment, but that such responses can be learned at any stage in life.
How many attachments do we form? The argument here is not as straight forward as it first appears. On the face of it the debate is between many attachments or just the one. However, Bowlby, who was in the ‘one’ camp, did not actually believe that only one attachment was formed, rather that there was only one primary attachment. The ‘many attachments’ approach believes there are many attachments and that they are all similarly important to the child. The text also claims that Bowlby did not believe that the main attachment had to be the mother, saying that his words ‘maternal’ and ‘mothering’ were not intended to mean mother! That is certainly not the way I understood it! However, back to the real issue, one main attachment or many important ones? Thomas (1998) has made it clear that children will benefit from a variety of attachment styles provided by different caregivers, so for example an attachment to a father figure will provide benefits to the child that a mother alone could not provide. In Caribbean and European culture, infants seem to form many equally important attachments to different people. Bowlby (1969) claimed that there was a hierarchy of attachments, with a primary caregiver, usually the mother at the top. The Efe, an African tribe, share the care of their children so that women in the village breast feed each another’s children. However, the infants still go on to form their primary attachment with their biological mother.
Extension (that perennial issue, quantity or quality?)
Does attachment depend upon the length of time the caregiver spends with the infant or the quality of care that they offer? You won’t be surprised to hear that it seems to be quality not quantity that counts! (As I always tell the ladies!). Fox (1977) studied children raised in Kibbutzim (plural of Kibbutz). The children spent the day with metapelets (nurses) and only a small amount of time each evening with parents. Despite this they still formed their primary attachment with their mother. Fox attributed this to the one to one care (quality) offered by the mother despite the nurses having the quantity of care option. Harlow (1959) in his classic study found that baby monkeys would rather cuddle up to a cloth model rather than a wire one, even though the wire one fed them.
What kind of attachments do we form? Much of what we’ve seen in Psychology so far looks at ways in which we are similar. It has tried to find models or theories that explain human behaviour but without considering ways in which our behaviours differ. An important area in the subject however is individual differences which, as the title suggests seeks to explain the differences we find between people. This section seeks to explain how: · Individuals differ in the types of attachment they form · Different cultures influence the types of attachment we form
Findings
Conclusions From her observations Ainsworth (Mary) concluded that there were three types of attachment.
Main and Cassidy (1988) added a fourth type of attachment that they referred to as ‘disorganised.’ The infant’s behaviour is not consistent and shows signs of indecisiveness and confusion. Sometimes the child will freeze or rock back and forth.
Evaluation of the Strange situation Subsequent studies that have used the 'Strange Situation' have found it to be reliable and valid. · Reliability refers to whether you can produce the same results if tested again. · Validity refers to the extent to which the 'Strange Situation' actually measures what it is supposed to measure. Reliability of the 'Strange Situation' was demonstrated by Main, Kaplan and Cassidy (1985): They tested babies at 18 months and then retested them at 6 years of age. They found that 100% of the secure babies were still classified as secure and 75% of the avoidant babies were still under the same classification. Validity of the 'Strange Situation.' The method of criterion validity was used. Criterion validity assesses current attachment type and predicts future attachment. e.g. a securely attached infant is more likely to be sociable and emotionally adjusted at later ages, compared to an insecurely attached infant.
Evidence for validity is not so conclusive, different researchers reaching different conclusions: Sroufe (1983) found support for its validity. Infants that were rated as secure went on to become more popular, have higher self esteem, and be social leaders. However, Bates, et al (1985) disagreed. They claimed that early attachment styles did not predict the presence of behaviour problems at 3 years of age. The strange situation study seems to imply that attachment types influence personality and therefore affect later attachments. However, the strange situation may actually be testing the relationship between the infant and the caregiver. Main and Weston (1981) found that children behaved differently depending on which parent they were with. This suggests that attachment type is not consistent.
Temperament hypothesis. As we saw earlier, perhaps the reason for a relationship between early attachment and later relationships has nothing to do with the type of attachment formed. Another possible explanation, Kagan (1984) is temperament of the child. Those who are naturally good at forming relationships do so early in life and form close relationships with parents and this is true later in life as well; because of their pleasant temperament they are more popular with people in later life too. Evaluation of temperament hypothesis: probably not a likely theory since a child’s attachment type seems to bear little resemblance to the child’s personality, as determined by caregiver. i.e. securely attached infants are not necessarily the ones with the most pleasant personalities
Cross cultural studies Ainsworth carried out most of her research in the USA but others have found broad agreement with her findings in other parts of the World. The ones I’ll mention below are exceptions in that they are different and we shall consider possible explanations for this.
It is important to remember that these studies do not prove cause and effect. Think of examples of correlations that we have come across. The researchers assume that child rearing has caused these differences in attachment types between cultures but other variables e.g. other social factors such as standard of living and even genetic influences could also be involved. Explanations of these cross cultural differences Israeli children were reared in a Kibbutz so were used to being separated from their mother. As a result they do not show anxiety when their mother leaves. However, they are not used to strangers so get distressed when left alone with the stranger. This explains the high percentage of resistant behaviour. Japanese children show similar patterns of attachment to the Israeli children but for different reasons. Japanese children are very rarely left by their mother. So the distress they show when she leaves is probably more due to shock than it is to insecure attachment. The distress they show when left alone with the stranger is also more likely to be due to absence of the mother. The German study highlights a high percentage of avoidant behaviour, typical of independent children. This is not surprising given that Grossmann et al (1985) say that German parents seek ‘independent, non-clingy infants, who do not make demands on parents, but obey their commands.’ Ah if only it were true in Britain!
Evaluation of cross cultural studies Mary Ainsworth assumed that separation anxiety was an indication of secure attachment and this may be the case in some countries such as Britain and the USA. However, separation anxiety in other societies and cultures may represent other factors. The strange situation may therefore not always be a suitable measure of attachment and may in fact be culturally specific. This development of a test for one culture, then being used in unfamiliar cultures is referred to in psychology as imposed etic, and is most controversial in the testing of IQ. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg report that differences in attachment within a culture are far greater than those found between cultures. They conclude that it is wrong to think of everyone in a culture having the same practices. Within a culture there are many sub-cultures, all with their own way of rearing children. These may be ethnically or racially based but also may be class specific, for example in the UK the so called ‘middle classes’ having different child-rearing techniques to the ‘working classes.’ However, in support of the strange situation, Bee (1999) believes that the most striking feature of the cross cultural studies is their similarity. With the exception of the countries mentioned earlier, most countries do seem to have a similar pattern with most infants forming secure attachments and the rest being split equally between avoidant and resistant.
These try to explain why we bother to form attachments. A frequently asked question asks you’ to outline [and sometimes evaluate] one or more explanations of attachment. Faced with this, or a similar question, choose one or more of the following:
Psychodynamic (Cupboard Love) ‘The reason why the infant in arms wants to perceive the presence of its mother is only because it already knows by experience that she satisfies all its needs without delay,’ Freud (1924). According to this theory, the child seeks to be close to the mother since she is their primary source of comfort, warmth and above all food. Freud based his theory of attachment on his earlier work on the psychosexual stages of development. Put simply, Freud was convinced that adult personality was determined by early childhood experience. The following box is a brief outline of Freud’s view of child development. At this stage this is more for interest, background reading and ice breakers at parties. Only the oral stage is relevant for this section, the other stages rear their ugly heads in later topics, e.g. phallic stage for moral development in year 13, if you can wait that long!
As fascinating as the other stages are, the key stage for attachment is the oral stage, when the child sucks at the mother’s breast. The child realises that the mother provides warmth, comfort and food which satisfies the id, see notes below:
EvaluationHarlow’s (1959) research carried out on monkeys showed that, given the choice they would cuddle up to a soft fluffy surrogate mother, rather than, as Freud would have predicted, a wire surrogate that provides food. See any text for famous pictures of this research. Harlow’s work itself is open to criticism. Is it possible to generalise from monkeys to humans? Schaffer and Emerson (1964) showed that Harlow’s work was relevant. They found that in 40% of cases the figure to whom the child was most attached was not the figure that fed and cared for them the most. Schaffer put it succinctly; ‘babies do not live to eat, but rather they eat to live.’ Harlow and Suomi (1970) found that when the soft fluffy surrogate rocked, fed the baby monkey and was nice and warm, the bond formed was even stronger.
Bowlby’s theory of attachment It is impossible to study attachment and child development without considering Bowlby’s work. His theories on attachment and on maternal deprivation have been some of the most influential writings on the topic. Given the nature of his theory I thought it would be worth including an abridged biography of Bowlby’s early life which sheds light on his motivation to produce the sort of theories he did. Bowby’s theory Bowlby believed that attachment is innate and adaptive. We are all born with an inherited need to form attachments and this is to help us survive. In line with Darwin’s theory of natural selection, any behaviour that helps you survive to maturity and reproduce yourself will be maintained in the gene pool. In human terms, the newborn infant is helpless and relies on its mother for food, warmth etc. Similarly the mother inherits a genetic blueprint that predisposes her to loving behaviour towards the infant. Bowlby believed that an attachment promotes survival in 3 ways:
Other aspects of the theory (deary)
|
