Attachment Theory

by
Kabeega Kabengera
27/9/2019
ATTACHMENT
THEORY
 Background
• John Bowlby observed orphaned infants after World
War II (1940s)
– Concluded that early social attachment between an infant
and a caretaker is essential for normal social development
– Determined that babies and mothers have an innate
tendency to form an attachment
• Mary Ainsworth continued Bowlby’s research
– Proposed that infants’ attachment to a caregiver differs in
the degree of security in the attachment
– Differences in security of attachment influence personality
and social relationships in infancy and beyond
 Outline
• Attachment theory
• Cross-cultural applications
• How does attachment develop?
• Attachment security & secure-base behaviours
• Impact of adversity & attachment insecurity
• Assessing & classifying infant attachment
• Alternative attachments / multiple attachments
• Summary
 Attachment Theory
• Attachment does not have to be reciprocal. One person may
have an attachment with an individual which is not shared.
• Attachment is characterized by specific behaviors in children,
such as seeking proximity with the attachment figure when
upset or threatened (Bowlby, 1969).
• Attachment behavior in adults towards the child includes
responding sensitively and appropriately to the child’s needs.
• Such behavior appears universal across cultures. Attachment
theory provides an explanation of how the parent-child
relationship emerges and influences subsequent development.
 Attachment Theory
• John Bowlby (1958) considered the importance of the child’s
relationship with their mother in terms of their social, emotional
and cognitive development.
• Looked at link between early infant separations with the mother
and later maladjustment.
• Bowlby defined attachment as a “lasting psychological
connectedness between human beings” (1969, p.194).
• Bowlby (1958) proposed that attachment can be understood
within an evolutionary context in that the caregiver provides
safety and security for the infant. Attachment is adaptive as it
enhances the infant’s chance of survival.
 Attachment Theory
• Attachment is a deep and enduring emotional bond that
connects one person to another across time and space
Ainsworth, 1973; Bowlby, 1969).
• Attachment does not have to be reciprocal. One person may
have an attachment with an individual which is not
shared. Attachment is characterized by specific behaviors in
children, such as seeking proximity with the attachment figure
when upset or threatened (Bowlby, 1969).
• Attachment behavior in adults towards the child includes
responding sensitively and appropriately to the child’s
needs. Such behavior appears universal across cultures.
Attachment theory provides an explanation of how the parent-
child relationship emerges and influences subsequent
development.
 Attachment Theory
1. It’s innate (Lorenz & Harlow offer
support)
2. It has a critical time period to
develop (one primary attachment
figure for up to age ) (disputed)
3. Child develops internal working
model of world
– A cognitive schema
4. If attachment is not formed,
problems may develop later in life
(disputed)
 Attachment Theory
• Babies seek proximity to mother and react with anxiety to
separation from her.” (Bowlby, 1973)
– It’s emotional: negative emotional influences later life if attachment is not
formed within critical time period (birth to age 2 years old) (LO 6)
– It’s universal: evolutionary advantages for babies to bound with mothers
– It does not have to be the mother, but Bowlby felt needed to be one
person
• The central theme of attachment theory is that mothers who are
available and responsive to their infant's needs establish a sense
of security.
– The infant knows that the caregiver is dependable, which creates a secure
base for the child to then explore the world & establishes a bases for
future relationships
– This cognitive schema is called an internal working model
 Attachment Theory
– If child experiences love and affection, the child sees
itself as worthy of love and attention
• Future relationships will be based on this
– If the child experiences rejection, abuse or neglect,
may base their working model on denial
• They deserve to be unloved
• (Learning Outcome 6)
– Internal Working Models are reproduced in later
relationships
 Attachment Theory
• Internal working model: child forms
internal mental representations of
attachment relationships of their first
attachment relationship (Schema
theory!!)
– Motivation for attachment is biological, but
process is based on experience
– The cognitive schema of attachment:
• Ideas about attachment figures and what to
expect of them
• Ideas about self
• Ideas of how self and others relate
 Attachment Theory
– If child experiences love and affection,
the child sees itself as worthy of love
and attention
• Future relationships will be based on this
– If the child experiences rejection,
abuse or neglect, may base their
working model on denial
• They deserve to be unloved
– Internal Working Models are
reproduced in later relationships
 Modifications to Attachment Theory
MATERNAL SENSITIVITY
• Studies indicate that the sensitivity
of the mother plays a role in the
development of attachment
– Brazleton, 1975: observational studies
of mothers and babies
• Found interactional synchrony: where
mothers and babies imitate each others
emotional expressions
• When researchers requested mothers
ignore babies signals – babies became
upset
 Modifications to Attachment Theory
THE INFANT’S TEMPERAMENT
• Kagen, 1982: Temperaments are genetic
dispositions to respond to the
environment in certain ways
– On a spectrum from highly reactive to low
reactivity
• Most cultures will influence (push) babies to
certain parts of this spectrum
– Kagen would say this is the cause of
different behavior in Ainsworths strange
situation
 Modifications to Attachment Theory
ATTACHMENT MAY BE TO MANY
• Schaffer & Emerson (1964) specific
attachments started at about 8 months
– By 18 months very few (13%) were attached
to only one person; some had five or more
attachments
• At age 8 months, babies can distinguish
between primary attachments (mom &
dad) and secondary attachments (others)
– Probably due to brain development – visual
system becoming capable of making fine
distinctions
 Modifications to Attachment Theory
ATTACHMENT CAN OCCUR LATER
• Bowlby says attachment has a critical
time period – short, fixed, & early period
like imprinting
• Michael Rutter: Not fixed
– attachment can happen later in life
• Hodges & Tizard, 1989: found that
children who had not formed attachment
behavior at age 4 – when adopted, later
did form attachment behavior
 Attachment Theory
Characteristics of Attachment Behavior

1. The child strives to stay near the caregiver, thus keeping the
child safe. (Proximity Maintenance)
2. The child returns to the attachment figure for comfort &
safety in times of distress. (Safe Haven)
3. Reacting with distress when separated from attachment
figure (separation distress) &
4. The caregiver provides a secure and dependable base for
the child to explore the world. (Secure Base)
 Attachment Theory
– Separation Distress: Kagen,
1978: When separated from
the caregiver, the child will
become upset and
distressed. Develops around
6 – 8 months & last until
about 3 years of age
– Cultural influence:
• Collectivist cultures: Lots of
adults – this period is not as
intense or long
Attachment: Individual Differences

• Attachment is not an ‘all or nothing’

process
• There may be variations, or individual
differences between children in the
attachments they form
• There are different types of attachment:
Secure vs. Insecure
 Ainsworth & Bell (1970)
• Controlled observation of
children’s attachment
behaviour using the
‘Strange Situation
Classification’ (SSC):
– Mother leaves child in
unfamiliar environment
– Child is approached by
stranger
– Mother returns
– Looks at separation
protest, stranger anxiety
and reunion behaviour
Ainsworth & Bell (1970)
 Ainsworth & Bell (1971)

• Three patterns of attachment:

– Secure (70% of sample)
– Insecure – avoidant (15%)
– Insecure – resistant (15%)
• Ainsworth suggested that attachment type
was determined by primary carer’s
(mother’s) behaviour and how sensitive
the carer is to the child’s needs
Ainsworth & Bell (1971)
 Secure Attachment
– Distressed when mother left
– Positive & happy when mother returned
– Avoidant of stranger when alone but friendly
when mother present
– Will use the mother as a safe base to explore
their environment

• Associated with sensitive & responsive

primary care
• Characteristic of 70% of infants
 Avoidant Attachment
– No sign of distress by mother’s absence
– Showed little interest when she returned
– Infant okay with stranger and plays normally when stranger is
present
– Stranger will be treated similar to the mother (does not seek
contact).
– Mother & stranger are able to comfort infant equally well

• Mothers tend to be insensitive or not

interested in children
• Research has suggested that this attachment
style might be a result of abusive or neglectful
caregivers.
• Characteristic of 15% of infants
 Resistant Attachment
– Intensely distressed when mother left
– Apparent fear of stranger – and avoids stranger
– Clinginess mixed with rejection on return may
approach mother but may resist contact (or even
push her away)
– Fear of exploration (insecure behaviour) and cries
more
– Research suggests that ambivalent attachment is a
result of poor maternal availability. These children
cannot depend on their mother (or caregiver) to be
there when the child is in need
• Characteristic of 15% of infants
 Primary Career’s Behavior
Towards Child

Child’s ‘Working Model’

of Itself

Positive & Loved Unloved & Angry &

Rejected Confused

Secure Avoidant Resistant

 Evaluation of Ainsworth
• Does not take babies experience into account
– Babies that spend a lot of time with adults may appear to
be avoidant
• Most children form a secure attachment to their mothers –
LeVine, 2006
• Time spent in day care does NOT correlate to attachment!!! A
BIG issue even today!!
• Wartner, 1994: The strange situation classification has good
reliability.
– A study conducted in Germany found 78% of the children
were classified in the same way at ages 1 and 6 years
 Evaluation of Ainsworth
• Lacks Validity – Lamb, (1977): it identifies only the type of
attachment to the mother.
– The child may have a different type of attachment to the
father or grandmother, for example
• Lamb, 1985: highly artificial & limited in the amount of
information
• Cultural considerations – Japanese babies are rarely
separated from mothers
 Cultural Factors
• There are cultural differences:
– Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg, (1988): meta analysis
• Japan: absence of Avoidant, lots of Resistant
• Secure attachment – most dominate worldwide
• Based on childrearing styles
Factors that promote insecure attachment:

1. Abandonment & deprivation in the

first two years of life
2. Parenting that is abusive,
neglectful, or erratic
3. Childs own temperament
4. Stressful circumstances of the
family
 Bowlby’s 44 Thieves

• Aim:
– To investigate the effects of
maternal deprivation on children in
order to see whether delinquents
have suffered deprivation.
– According to the Maternal
Deprivation Hypothesis, breaking
the maternal bond with the child
during the early stages of its life is
likely to have serious effects on its
intellectual, social and emotional
development.
 Bowlby’s 44 Thieves
• Procedure:
– Bowlby interviewed 44 adolescents who were referred to
a child protection program in London because of stealing-
i.e. they were thieves.
– Bowlby selected another group of 44 children to act as
‘controls’- individuals referred to clinic because of
emotional problems, but not yet committed any crimes.
– He interviewed the parents from both groups to state
whether their children had experienced separation during
the critical period and for how long. (do you see any
problems with this?)
 Bowlby’s 44 Thieves
• Findings:
– More than half of the juvenile thieves had been
separated from their mothers for longer than 6
months during their first five years.
– In the control group only 2 had had such a
separation.
– He also found several of the young thieves (32%)
showed 'affectionless psychopathy' (they were not
able to care about or feel affection for others).
– None of the control group were affectionless
psychopaths.
Bowlby’s 44 Thieves
• Conclusion:
– Affectionless psychopaths show
little concern for others and are
unable to form relationships.
– Bowlby concluded that the
reason for the anti-social
behavior and emotional
problems in the first group was
due to maternal deprivation.
 Hodges & Tizard, (1989)

• Aims:
– To investigate the effect of
institutional upbringing on later
attachments.
– To investigate the effects of
deprivation on later social and
emotional development.
– To investigate if the effects of
privation can be reversed
 Hodges & Tizard, (1989)
• Procedure:
– Followed the development of 65 children who had been in
residential nurseries from only a few months old. A longitudinal
study, semi-experimental design – a naturalistic observation
– The care provided was of good quality, but care givers were
discouraged from forming attachments with the children (i.e.
deprivation occurred). ETHICS!!
– By age 4, 24 children were adopted, 15 returned to their natural
home (restored), and the rest stayed in institutions
– They were also compared with a control group, who had spent
all their lives in their own families. The control group was closely
matched to the children in the experimental group.
– The children were assessed for social and emotional competence
at 4, 8 and 16 years old. The assessment comprised interviewing
the children and their parents and teachers and a set of
questionnaires.
 Hodges & Tizard, (1989) - Findings
Adopted Restored
4 Years No Attachment No Attachment
8 Years Normal Attachment Poor Attachment
16 Years Normal Attachment Only 50% ‘deeply’ attached

Conclusion:
We can conclude from this evidence that Bowlby was correct to
emphasize the importance of the early years, but the effects of delay
in the formation of attachments do not necessarily persist into
adulthood and lead to affectionless psychopathy, as Bowlby predicted.

Indeed, loving relationships and high quality care are necessary to

reverse deprivation effects.
 Subsequent formation of
relationships
• Attachment and it’s relationship to adult
romantic love (our internal working models)
– Hazan & Shaver, 1987:
• Aim: Wanted to explore relationship between
attachment theory & romantic love
– Attachment theory might be able to explain both positive &
negative experiences of love
• Assumptions: Adult attachment behavior is reflected in:
– Beliefs about self, others, & relationships
– Their inner working model
• Hazen & Shaver’s love quiz – based on 3 attachment
styles
 Subsequent formation of relationships

– Participants: self-selecting – 620 (2/3rds

female)
• 60% secure style
• 20 % anxious ambivalent style
• 20% anxious-avoidant style
• Self description of parents by participants
correlated with love quiz results
– Lots of criticism on method & sampling
• Try the ‘Romantic Attachment Style’ Quiz:
• http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl-attachment-quiz.htm
 6.4 Effects of Deprivation or
Trauma
on later development
• A child reared in a severely deprived setting will not
experience factors such as access to adequate
nutrition, sensory and cognitive stimulation, loving
caregivers and linguistic input. However – this does
NOT mean the child will not develop normally.
• Deprivation: living in a state of neglect to provide
basic needs. Often connected with growing up in
poverty, parental problems or institutionalization
 Effects of Deprivation cont..
• Trauma: can be experienced in childhood (eg
divorce, war, natural disasters, sexual abuse)
and can have long-lasting effects on
development.
• It is difficult to distinguish between effects of
deprivation or trauma – they are much the
same.
 6.4 Effects of Trauma
on later development
PTSD – left untreated, can show in children as hyper-
vigilance, agitation, avoidance behaviours and emotional
numbness.
• Carion et al (2009) – fMRI scans found children
suffering PTSD after experiencing stressors such as
abuse or witnessing violence performed worse on a
simple verbal memory test and showed less
hippocampal activity. Also exhibited specific PTSD
symptoms. They also had problems remembering the
trauma, felt isolated and had impaired emotions.
 Effects of Trauma cont…
• Yehuda et al (2001) – studied 51 children of
Holocaust survivors who were raised by
traumatised parents. Mean age: 40.9 years.
Results show children of Holocaust survivors
more likely to develop PTSD (33.3% compared
to 12.2% of control group) Showed PTSD can
be transmitted from parent to child.
 6.4 Effects of Deprivation
on later development
• Rutter, (2001): longitudinal study on Romanian
institutionally-reared children who were later
adopted into UK homes compared to UK
institutionally-reared children who were later
adopted
– Three areas of differences:
1. Greater no of Romanian children with attachment problems
(avoidant attachment)
2. Greater over activity & cognitive impairment
3. Showed “near autistic features”
 6.4 Effects of Deprivation or
Trauma
on later development
• Rutter, 2001: (continued)
– Age of adoption a factor – the older when child left
orphanage, more problems
– But by age six, most children were normal in their
functioning
– Most children are resilient!!!
• Koluchova, 1971: Czech twin boys
– Longitudinal case study
– Turned out ok – counter to Genie