ATTACHMENT THEORY
Attachment Theory
 Bowlby viewed infants attachment
to a caregiver as a mechanism that
evolved to protect infants from
predators.
 According to ethological theory,
infants and babies are biologically
predispose to become attached to
each other.
 Attachment is a deep and enduring
emotional bond that connects one
person to another across time and
space (Ainsworth 1973, Bowlby
1969)
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 parentchild 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 parentchild 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 latter 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 Carer’s Behaviour
Towards Child
Child’s ‘Working Model’
of Itself
Positive & Loved
Unloved &
Rejected
Angry &
Confused
Secure
Avoidant
Resistant
Evaluation of Ainsworth
 Does not take babies experience into account
 Babies that spend a lot of time with lots of 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 privation 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.
privation 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 privation 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 tp provide basic
needs. Often connected with growing up in poverty,
parental problems or institutionalisation
Trauma: can be experienced in childhood (eg divorce,
war, natural disasters, sexual abuse) and can have longlasting 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.
 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.
2.
3.
Greater # of Romanian children with attachment problems
(avoidant attachment)
Greater over activity & cognitive impairment
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