PSYCH404: The Development of Psychological Attachments
Level 4 — 20 sessions
This session directly addresses:
This foundational session introduces students to the concept of attachment through two of the most influential (and controversial) animal studies in psychology. The primary goal is to establish why these early studies were pivotal in shifting the psychological perspective from a simple "cupboard love" theory to a more complex understanding of comfort and security. For online delivery, use visual aids and video clips of the original experiments to make the concepts tangible. Encourage a debate on the ethics of animal research, as this is a critical evaluation point that will be relevant throughout the module. The session should set the stage for Bowlby's more comprehensive human-focused theory in the next session.
Before the mid-20th century, the dominant explanation for the bond between an infant and a primary caregiver was rooted in behaviourism. This perspective, often termed the "cupboard love" theory, proposed that attachment is a learned behaviour. According to classical conditioning, the infant, who is born with an innate pleasure response to food (an unconditioned stimulus), learns to associate the caregiver (a neutral stimulus) with the provision of food. Over time, the caregiver alone becomes a conditioned stimulus, capable of eliciting a pleasure response (the conditioned response), which forms the basis of the attachment bond. Similarly, operant conditioning suggests that the infant's cries for food are positively reinforced by the caregiver providing sustenance, and the caregiver is negatively reinforced by the cessation of the infant's crying. This mutual reinforcement strengthens the bond. In essence, the theory posits that attachment is secondary to the primary drive of hunger.
Austrian ethologist Konrad Lorenz (1935) challenged the simplicity of the cupboard love theory with his groundbreaking research on imprinting in geese. Ethology is the study of animal behaviour in natural settings. Lorenz conducted an experiment where he divided a clutch of greylag goose eggs. Half were hatched naturally by the mother, and the other half were hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz. The goslings hatched by the mother followed her, while the incubator-hatched goslings followed Lorenz everywhere. He found that this imprinting behaviour was restricted to a "critical period" of just a few hours after hatching. If the goslings did not see a moving object to imprint on within this window, they would not form an attachment at all. This suggested that attachment was an innate, pre-programmed behaviour, not a learned one, and that it was not dependent on feeding.
Harry Harlow';s (1958) work with rhesus monkeys provided a powerful and definitive critique of the cupboard love theory. Harlow separated infant monkeys from their mothers at birth and raised them with two surrogate "mothers." One was a bare wire-mesh mother that provided milk from an attached bottle. The other was a soft, cloth-covered mother that offered no milk. According to the cupboard love theory, the monkeys should have attached to the wire mother who provided food. However, Harlow found the opposite. The infant monkeys spent the vast majority of their time clinging to the soft cloth mother, only visiting the wire mother briefly to feed. When frightened, they invariably ran to the cloth mother for security. This demonstrated unequivocally that "contact comfort" was a more crucial factor in attachment formation than the provision of food.
While both Lorenz's and Harlow's studies were revolutionary, they raise significant ethical concerns. Lorenz's geese were irreversibly imprinted, affecting their later mating preferences. Harlow's experiments were particularly cruel; the monkeys he raised in isolation suffered severe and long-lasting psychological damage, growing up to be socially inept, aggressive, and unable to parent their own offspring. This research would not be permitted under modern ethical guidelines. Despite these issues, the impact of these studies was profound. They discredited the simplistic behaviourist view of attachment and paved the way for John Bowlby's evolutionary theory, which integrated concepts of innate drives, critical periods, and the primary importance of a secure emotional base.
| Feature | Konrad Lorenz (Geese) | Harry Harlow (Monkeys) |
|---|---|---|
| Aim | To investigate the mechanisms of imprinting, where some species of animals form an attachment to the first large moving object they meet. | To test the "cupboard love" theory and determine whether food or contact comfort is more important in attachment formation. |
| Procedure | Randomly divided a clutch of goose eggs. Half hatched with mother, half with Lorenz. Observed who they followed. | Raised infant monkeys with two surrogate mothers: a wire mother with food and a cloth mother without food. Measured time spent with each. |
| Findings | Goslings imprinted on the first moving object they saw during a critical period. This process is innate and irreversible. | Monkeys preferred the cloth mother for comfort, regardless of which mother provided food. Contact comfort is crucial for attachment. |
| Ethical Issues | Imprinting was irreversible, affecting later mating behaviour. Separation from natural mother. | Extreme emotional and psychological harm to the monkeys, leading to long-term developmental issues. Separation and social isolation. |
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 10 mins | Introduction & Live Poll on Attachment Formation |
| 25 mins | Lecture: The "Cupboard Love" Theory (Classical & Operant Conditioning) |
| 25 mins | Lecture & Video Clip: Konrad Lorenz and Imprinting |
| 10 mins | Short Writing Exercise on Lorenz's findings |
| 25 mins | Lecture & Video Clip: Harlow's Monkeys and Contact Comfort |
| 15 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Ethical Debate on Harlow's Study |
| 10 mins | Plenary: Group feedback, summary, and link to next session on Bowlby |
A short, classic video showing Lorenz with his imprinted goslings. Essential viewing to understand the concept visually.
A powerful documentary-style video showing the original footage from Harlow's experiments, including the monkeys' reactions to the wire and cloth mothers.
A good introductory article covering the early theories, including Lorenz, Harlow, and the learning theory approach. Provides a solid overview for further reading.
This session directly addresses:
This session is pivotal as it introduces John Bowlby's comprehensive and influential theory of attachment. The focus should be on explaining how Bowlby synthesized ideas from ethology (Lorenz) and psychoanalysis to create an evolutionary framework. Break down the key concepts of ASCMI (Adaptive, Social Releasers, Critical Period, Monotropy, Internal Working Model) to make them digestible. The concept of the Internal Working Model is particularly important as it forms the bridge to later topics on adult relationships. Use diagrams and case studies to illustrate how the IWM functions. Encourage students to connect Bowlby's ideas back to the findings of Lorenz and Harlow from the previous session.
John Bowlby (1969, 1988) rejected the learning theory of attachment, arguing that it failed to account for why attachments form even without the presence of food (as shown by Harlow). Instead, he proposed an evolutionary theory, suggesting that attachment is an innate, biological system that has evolved to increase an infant's chances of survival. In our evolutionary past (the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness), infants who stayed close to a caregiver were more likely to be protected from predators and the elements, survive to reproductive age, and pass on their genes. Therefore, attachment is a pre-programmed, adaptive behaviour. Bowlby's theory can be remembered using the acronym ASCMI.
A central tenet of Bowlby';s theory is the concept of monotropy. He placed great emphasis on a child's attachment to one particular caregiver, and he believed that this attachment is different and more important than others. Bowlby called this person the 'mother' but was clear that it did not have to be the biological mother or even a female; it was the person who responded most sensitively to the infant's signals. He proposed two principles to clarify this: the law of continuity (the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of their attachment) and the law of accumulated separation (the effects of every separation from the mother add up, and the safest dose is therefore a zero dose).
Bowlby argued that attachment is a reciprocal process; it is not just the infant who is programmed to attach. Adults are also innately programmed to respond to infant behaviours. Social releasers are the set of innate behaviours, such as crying, smiling, and gripping, that babies are born with. These are irresistible to adults and trigger a caregiving response. This reciprocal interplay gradually builds the relationship during the early weeks of life. Bowlby, influenced by Lorenz, also proposed a critical period for attachment formation. He initially suggested this was up to 2.5 years of age. He believed that if a child did not form an attachment during this time, they would be at risk of severe and potentially irreversible developmental consequences.
The Internal Working Model (IWM) is arguably Bowlby's most important contribution. He proposed that a child's first attachment with their primary caregiver forms a mental representation, or a template, for what relationships are like. A child whose first experience is of a loving, reliable, and responsive caregiver will form an IWM that assumes all relationships are like this. They will bring this expectation to future relationships and will likely seek out functional connections and behave in a functionally healthy way within them. Conversely, a child with a negative early experience (e.g., neglectful or inconsistent care) will develop an IWM where they expect relationships to be difficult and untrustworthy. This IWM affects the child's later ability to be a parent themselves, as people tend to base their parenting style on their own experiences of being parented.
(e.g., with primary caregiver)
A mental template for relationships
(e.g., friendships, romantic partners)
Replicates early experiences
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 10 mins | Recap of Session 1 & Introduction to Bowlby's Evolutionary Theory |
| 25 mins | Lecture: The Adaptive Nature of Attachment & Social Releasers |
| 15 mins | Brainstorming Activity: Social Releasers |
| 25 mins | Lecture: Monotropy and the Critical Period |
| 25 mins | Lecture: The Internal Working Model (IWM) with Flowchart Explanation |
| 20 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Case Study Analysis of the IWM |
A well-animated and accessible overview of Bowlby's and Ainsworth's work from Sprouts. Excellent for consolidating the core concepts, especially the Internal Working Model.
The primary source. While dense, reading excerpts from the introduction can give students a direct sense of Bowlby's revolutionary perspective and writing style.
A detailed yet easy-to-read article that breaks down all the key components of Bowlby's theory (ASCMI) with evaluation points.
This session directly addresses:
This session moves from broad theories to the micro-level interactions that form the building blocks of attachment. The core concepts are Reciprocity and Interactional Synchrony. It's crucial to differentiate them clearly. Use video clips of mother-infant interactions to make these abstract concepts visible and understandable. The "Still Face" experiment is a powerful tool here. The session should also introduce the challenges of researching infants, setting up critical evaluation skills for later sessions. Emphasise that these early "conversations" are not random but are a sophisticated, innate system for social connection.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 10 mins | Introduction: The Importance of Early Interactions |
| 30 mins | Lecture & Video Analysis: Reciprocity - A Two-Way Street |
| 30 mins | Lecture & Video Analysis: Interactional Synchrony - Mirroring and Connection |
| 20 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Analysing the "Still Face" Experiment |
| 20 mins | Discussion: The Challenges of Researching Infant Behaviour |
| 10 mins | Plenary: Summary and link to Schaffer & Emerson's stages |
While theories provide a framework, attachment is built moment by moment through the subtle, non-verbal communication between an infant and their caregiver. From birth, babies are not passive recipients of care; they are active participants in a social world. These early interactions are crucial for cognitive and emotional development, teaching the infant the basic rules of social engagement. Psychologists have identified two key forms of caregiver-infant interaction that are fundamental to forming a strong bond: reciprocity and interactional synchrony. These interactions are like a finely tuned "dance" where each partner responds to the other's cues.
Reciprocity describes the turn-taking nature of caregiver-infant interactions. It's like a conversation where one person responds to the other. The infant sends out a signal (e.g., a smile, a gurgle), and the caregiver responds in a meaningful way (e.g., smiling back, speaking softly). This interaction is not one-sided; caregivers also elicit responses from the infant. Brazelton et al. (1975) described this as a "dance," where each partner responds to the other's moves. These interactions, while not necessarily synchronous, are crucial for teaching the infant about social rules and for building a sense of connection and trust.
Interactional synchrony is a more refined form of interaction where the caregiver and infant mirror each other';s actions and emotions in a coordinated (synchronised) way. It's about being "in tune" with one another. Meltzoff and Moore (1977) conducted a famous study where an adult displayed one of three facial expressions or gestures to an infant. They found that infants as young as two weeks old would imitate the adult's expression, suggesting this ability is innate. Isabella et al. (1989) later found that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant attachment. This mirroring is believed to be important for emotional development and for the infant's understanding that they can affect the emotional state of others.
| Feature | Reciprocity | Interactional Synchrony |
|---|---|---|
| Core Concept | Turn-taking, like a conversation. Action and response. | Simultaneous mirroring of actions and emotions. |
| Timing | Sequential. One person acts, then the other responds. | Synchronised. Actions occur at the same time. |
| Example | Baby smiles, caregiver smiles back. | Caregiver smiles, and baby smiles at the same time, mirroring the expression. |
While research into caregiver-infant interactions is fascinating, it is fraught with methodological challenges. It is difficult to know what is happening from the infant's perspective. Are their imitative behaviours deliberate and conscious, or are they simply an automatic, reflexive response? For example, when an infant mimics a tongue protrusion, is it an intentional act of communication or just a behaviour they do when they are interested in something? Furthermore, observations are open to observer bias, where researchers may interpret an infant's behaviour in a way that supports their hypothesis. To counter this, researchers often use multiple observers and check for inter-rater reliability. The small, subtle movements of infants also make their behaviour difficult to quantify reliably. These issues mean that while the evidence for reciprocity and synchrony is strong, we must be cautious in our interpretations.
A clear and concise video from "Bear it in MIND" that explains and visually demonstrates the concepts of reciprocity and interactional synchrony.
The original, powerful video of the "Still Face" experiment. It provides a compelling visual demonstration of an infant's social expectations and distress when reciprocity breaks down.
This article provides a good overview of the different components of attachment, including a section on caregiver-infant interactions.
This session directly addresses:
This session introduces the first major stage theory of human attachment, based on the landmark longitudinal study by Schaffer and Emerson. The focus should be on both the methodology of the study and the four stages it identified. It's important to highlight how this study provided empirical evidence that challenged both the "cupboard love" theory and aspects of Bowlby's theory (specifically monotropy). Use a flowchart or timeline to visually represent the stages. The evaluation of the study's methodology (e.g., reliance on maternal reports, cultural bias) is a key component and provides an excellent opportunity to reinforce research methods concepts.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction: The Glasgow Babies Study (Schaffer &; Emerson, 1964) |
| 30 mins | Lecture: The First Two Stages - Asocial and Indiscriminate Attachment |
| 30 mins | Lecture: The Final Two Stages - Specific and Multiple Attachments |
| 25 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Evaluating the Methodology of the Study |
| 10 mins | Discussion: How the findings challenge monotropy |
| 10 mins | Plenary: Summary of the four stages and their significance |
In 1964, Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy Emerson conducted a major longitudinal study that provided one of the first detailed accounts of how attachment develops in human infants. They studied 60 babies from working-class families in Glasgow, visiting them in their homes every month for the first year and again at 18 months. The researchers gathered data through observations and interviews with the mothers. They measured attachment by assessing two key behaviours: separation anxiety (the level of protest shown by the infant when the caregiver leaves) and stranger anxiety (the level of distress shown by the infant in response to an unfamiliar person). This detailed, long-term study allowed them to map out a clear sequence of developmental stages.
In the first few weeks of life (approximately 0-6 weeks), infants' behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects is quite similar. Schaffer and Emerson termed this the "asocial" stage. This does not mean the baby is antisocial, but rather that their social behaviour is not yet directed at specific individuals. They show some preference for familiar adults (e.g., they are more easily calmed by them) and are happier in the presence of humans than when alone. At this stage, they are beginning to form bonds, but signs of attachment are not yet clear.
From around 2 to 7 months, infants begin to show a clear preference for people rather than inanimate objects and recognise and prefer familiar adults. They accept cuddles and comfort from any adult and do not usually show separation or stranger anxiety. Their attachment is "indiscriminate" because it is not directed at any one person. They will smile and engage with almost anyone. This phase is crucial for learning the general rules of social interaction.
Around the 7-month mark, a major shift occurs. Infants start to display classic signs of attachment towards one particular adult (the primary attachment figure). This is characterised by the onset of both stranger anxiety and separation anxiety. The infant will show joy upon reunion with their primary caregiver and will be easily comforted by them. Schaffer and Emerson found that in 65% of cases, this primary attachment was to the mother. This specific attachment figure acts as a "secure base" from which the infant can explore the world.
Shortly after forming a specific attachment, infants extend this behaviour to other adults with whom they spend regular time. These are called secondary attachments. Schaffer and Emerson observed that by the age of one year, the majority of infants had formed multiple attachments (e.g., to fathers, grandparents, siblings). This finding is a significant challenge to Bowlby's theory of monotropy, which suggested that only one attachment was primary and all others were of minor importance. Schaffer and Emerson argued that these multiple attachments are also crucial for a child's social development.
(0-6 weeks) Behaviour towards humans and objects is similar.
(2-7 months) Prefers people to objects. Accepts comfort from any adult.
(7+ months) Stranger & separation anxiety. Prefers one primary caregiver.
(1 year+) Forms secondary attachments with other familiar adults.
An excellent video from "Bear it in MIND" that clearly outlines the 1964 study and explains each of the four stages with helpful graphics.
A short, focused video that provides a quick revision of the four stages, ideal for reinforcing the key concepts.
A detailed article covering the aim, method, results, and evaluation of the Glasgow babies study, providing a solid foundation for essay writing.
This session directly addresses:
This session critically examines the traditionally mother-centric view of attachment by focusing on the father's role. The key debate is whether fathers act as primary attachment figures in the same way as mothers, or if they have a different, complementary role. It's important to present evidence for both sides. Discuss Schaffer and Emerson's findings on primary attachment, contrasting them with more contemporary research that highlights the father's role in play and stimulation. This topic offers a great opportunity to discuss how social and cultural changes (e.g., more stay-at-home fathers) can influence psychological theories and research findings.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction: Challenging the Mother-Centric View |
| 30 mins | Lecture: Fathers as Primary Attachment Figures - Evidence and Limitations |
| 30 mins | Lecture: Fathers as Secondary Figures - The Role of Play and Stimulation |
| 25 mins | Breakout Room Debate: "Is the father's role in attachment different or just secondary?" |
| 20 mins | Discussion: Social, Economic, and Cultural Factors Influencing the Father's Role |
Historically, psychological theories, particularly those of Freud and Bowlby, have emphasised the mother as the central and most important figure in an infant's life. Bowlby's concept of monotropy, in particular, positioned the father as a minor figure in the hierarchy of attachments. Schaffer and Emerson's (1964) study seemed to support this; they found that in only 3% of cases was the father the first specific attachment. In 27% of cases, the father was the joint first attachment with the mother. However, by 18 months, 75% of infants had formed a secondary attachment to their father, protesting when the father walked away. This suggests that while fathers are important, their role has traditionally been seen as secondary to the mother's.
Can a father take on the role of the primary attachment figure? Research suggests that they can. The key to attachment is not the gender of the caregiver but the level of sensitive responsiveness they provide. Field (1978) filmed 4-month-old babies in face-to-face interactions with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers, and primary caregiver fathers. Primary caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smiling, imitating, and holding infants than secondary caregiver fathers. This behaviour appears to be important in building an attachment with the infant. This suggests that fathers have the potential to be the more emotion-focused primary attachment figure; they can provide the responsive care that forms the basis of a secure attachment, but perhaps only express this when given the role of primary caregiver.
While fathers can be primary caregivers, a large body of research suggests that, in two-parent heterosexual families, fathers often adopt a different role from mothers. Grossman (2002) conducted a longitudinal study looking at both parents' behaviour and its relationship to the quality of children's attachments into their teens. The quality of infant attachment with mothers, but not fathers, was related to children's attachments in adolescence, suggesting the father's role is less important in long-term emotional development. However, the quality of fathers' play with infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments. This suggests that fathers have a different role in attachment – one that is more to do with play and stimulation, and less to do with nurturing and comfort.
| Feature | Typical Mother Role | Typical Father Role |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Function | Nurturing, comforting, caregiving. | Play, stimulation, encouraging challenges. |
| Behaviour Style | Soothing, holding, conventional games (e.g., peek-a-boo). | Physical, unpredictable, "rough-and-tumble" play. |
| Developmental Impact | Forms the secure base for emotional development and the IWM. | Promotes problem-solving, resilience, and independence. |
The research on the role of the father can be confusing, with some studies showing fathers as secondary figures and others highlighting their capacity for a primary role. This inconsistency may be due to researchers asking different questions. Research into the father as a primary caregiver is asking "Can fathers be the primary attachment figure?";, while research into the father as a secondary caregiver is asking "What is the father's unique contribution?". The answer to the first is 'yes', and to the second is that their contribution is often different. Furthermore, social norms and cultural expectations have changed significantly since the 1960s. Traditional gender roles are no longer the norm in many societies, and this has a direct impact on the father's role in child-rearing. This means that findings from early research may lack temporal validity today.
A comprehensive video from "Bear it in MIND" that covers the key studies (Schaffer & Emerson, Grossman, Field) and the main evaluation points regarding the father's role.
An article that summarises the key arguments and research evidence, providing a solid basis for understanding this topic.
This session directly addresses:
This session revisits Lorenz's study in greater detail, focusing on its procedural elements and theoretical implications. The key concepts to reinforce are imprinting, the critical period, and sexual imprinting. Use video clips of the original study to make the process clear. The main pedagogical goal is to use Lorenz's work as a springboard for a critical discussion on the generalisability of animal studies to humans. This is a fundamental evaluation skill in psychology. Encourage students to think about both the similarities (e.g., innate bonding mechanisms) and the profound differences (e.g., role of emotion and cognition) between animal and human attachment.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction: Why Study Animals in Attachment Research? |
| 30 mins | Lecture & Video: Lorenz's (1935) Procedure and Findings |
| 25 mins | Analysis: The Critical Period and Sexual Imprinting |
| 30 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Evaluating Lorenz's Research (Strengths & Weaknesses) |
| 20 mins | Plenary Discussion: The Problem of Generalising from Birds to Humans |
Ethology is the scientific study of animal behaviour, typically with a focus on behaviour under natural conditions and viewing behaviour as an evolutionarily adaptive trait. Konrad Lorenz, a key figure in ethology, was interested in how young animals attach to their mothers. He observed that in certain species, this attachment process was innate and automatic. His work provided a biological, evolutionary alternative to the behaviourist "cupboard love" theory and heavily influenced John Bowlby's later work on human attachment.
Lorenz conducted a classic experiment with greylag geese. He randomly divided a large clutch of goose eggs. One half was hatched by the mother goose in their natural environment. The other half was hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz. He found that the incubator group followed him everywhere, while the control group followed their mother. When the two groups were mixed, they continued to follow their respective "mothers." Lorenz called this phenomenon imprinting, whereby certain bird species attach to and follow the first moving object they see. He identified several key characteristics of this process: it was innate (not learned), irreversible, and occurred within a specific timeframe.
Lorenz noted that imprinting would only occur within a brief, set period after hatching, which he called the critical period. For geese, this was as short as a few hours. If a gosling did not see a moving object to imprint on during this time, it would not attach to a mother figure at all. This concept had a profound influence on Bowlby, who proposed a similar, though more flexible, "sensitive period" for human attachment. Lorenz also observed the long-term effects of imprinting. He found that the birds that had imprinted on him would later, as adults, display courtship behaviour towards him and other humans, showing no interest in other geese. He called this sexual imprinting, where the birds acquire a template of the desirable characteristics required in a mate.
Lorenz';s research was highly influential and provided strong evidence against the learning theory of attachment. However, it has been criticised. Later research (Guiton et al., 1966) found that chickens who imprinted on yellow washing-up gloves would try to mate with them as adults (as Lorenz predicted), but with experience, they learned to prefer mating with other chickens. This suggests that the effects of imprinting are not as permanent and irreversible as Lorenz claimed. The most significant limitation, however, is the problem of generalisability. The attachment system in mammals is very different and more complex than in birds. For example, mammalian mothers show more emotional affection to their young. This means it is not appropriate to generalise Lorenz's findings directly to humans. While his work was important for highlighting the adaptive nature of attachment and the concept of a critical period, we must be cautious about drawing direct parallels to human development.
A clear, narrated video showing the imprinting process and Lorenz interacting with the goslings that followed him.
This video from "Tutor2u" provides a good overview of both key animal studies, which is useful for comparison.
This session directly addresses:
This session focuses on Harlow's powerful and ethically contentious research. The primary goal is to ensure students understand how Harlow's findings systematically dismantled the "cupboard love" theory by demonstrating the primacy of "contact comfort." Use video clips of the experiments, as they are very impactful. A significant portion of the session must be dedicated to a structured discussion of the severe ethical issues and the long-term consequences for the monkeys. This is a key case study in the history of psychological ethics. Conclude by linking Harlow's findings to the human need for a "secure base" and the devastating effects of maternal deprivation.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction: The Question of Comfort vs. Food |
| 30 mins | Lecture & Video: Harlow's (1958) Procedure - The Two Mothers |
| 25 mins | Analysis of Findings: Contact Comfort and the Secure Base |
| 30 mins | Breakout Room Debate: The Ethics of Harlow's Research |
| 20 mins | Discussion: Maternal Deprivation in Monkeys and Links to Humans |
In the 1950s, the dominant theory of attachment was the behaviourist "cupboard love" theory, which proposed that infants attach to the person who feeds them. Harry Harlow sought to test this idea. He believed that this explanation was inadequate and that a more powerful motivator for attachment existed. His work with rhesus monkeys, which are genetically more similar to humans than geese, provided a more powerful model for understanding human attachment.
Harlow conducted a series of experiments with 16 baby rhesus monkeys who were separated from their biological mothers at birth. They were raised in isolation cages with two surrogate ";mothers." In the key condition, one surrogate was made of bare wire mesh but had a feeding bottle attached (the "wire mother"). The second surrogate was covered in soft towelling cloth but offered no food (the "cloth mother"). The amount of time the monkeys spent with each mother was recorded. The monkeys' responses to being frightened (e.g., by a noisy mechanical teddy bear) were also observed.
The findings were stark and conclusive. The monkeys spent only the minimal amount of time necessary to feed from the wire mother, but spent up to 22 hours a day clinging to the cloth mother. This demonstrated that contact comfort was of far greater importance to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour. The cloth mother also served as a secure base from which the monkeys would explore their environment, periodically returning to it for reassurance. This research showed that attachment does not develop as a result of being fed by a mother figure but as a result of the comfort and security she provides.
Harlow followed the monkeys who had been deprived of a real mother into adulthood to see if this early maternal deprivation had a permanent effect. The consequences were severe. The monkeys were psychologically damaged for life. They were more aggressive, less sociable, and less skilled in mating than other monkeys. When they became mothers themselves, some of them neglected their young, while others attacked and sometimes even killed their own offspring. The severity of the psychological damage inflicted on the monkeys raises profound ethical questions. The value of the research in shaping our understanding of attachment is undeniable, but the cost in animal suffering was immense. This study is a primary example used in debates about the ethics of animal research and has led to much stricter guidelines today.
Essential viewing. This is the original, powerful documentary footage of the experiments, narrated by Harlow himself. It clearly shows the monkeys' preference for the cloth mother.
A video from SciShow Psych that provides a modern perspective on the experiments, balancing the scientific importance with a strong focus on the ethical issues.
This session directly addresses:
This session provides a more formal and detailed explanation of the Learning Theory of attachment, often called the "cupboard love" theory. The goal is to ensure students can articulate how the principles of both classical and operant conditioning are applied to explain the formation of the infant-caregiver bond. Use clear, step-by-step diagrams to illustrate the conditioning processes. It is crucial to then guide students through a thorough critique of this theory, using the evidence from Harlow, Schaffer & Emerson, and Lorenz that they have already learned. This reinforces evaluation skills by using knowledge from across topics.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction: The Behaviourist Approach to Attachment |
| 30 mins | Lecture & Diagram: Classical Conditioning and Attachment |
| 30 mins | Lecture & Diagram: Operant Conditioning and Attachment |
| 30 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Critiquing the Learning Theory |
| 15 mins | Plenary: Summarising the case against "Cupboard Love" |
The learning theory of attachment is a behaviourist explanation. Behaviourists believe that all behaviour, including attachment, is learned rather than innate. They focus on observable behaviours and the principles of conditioning. According to this perspective, infants are born as "blank slates" (tabula rasa) and learn to form attachments through their experiences of being fed. This is why it is often referred to as the "cupboard love" theory—it suggests that attachment is a consequence of the provision of food. The theory uses two main types of conditioning: classical and operant.
Classical conditioning explains attachment through association. The process begins with an innate stimulus-response link. Food is an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) that produces an innate, unlearned response of pleasure (UCR). A caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus (NS), meaning they produce no response. However, because the caregiver is consistently present when the infant is fed, the infant learns to associate the caregiver with the food. Through repeated pairing, the caregiver becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS). Now, the caregiver's presence alone is enough to produce the response of pleasure (now a conditioned response, CR). This learned pleasure response is the basis of the attachment bond.
Food (UCS) → Pleasure (UCR)
Caregiver (NS) → No Response
Caregiver (NS) + Food (UCS) → Pleasure (UCR)
Caregiver (CS) → Pleasure (CR)
Operant conditioning explains attachment through reinforcement (rewards). This approach, based on the work of B.F. Skinner, argues that behaviours that produce pleasant consequences are likely to be repeated. When an infant is hungry, it is in an unpleasant drive state. Crying is a behaviour that leads to the caregiver providing food, which reduces the hunger drive and produces a feeling of pleasure. This acts as positive reinforcement for the infant, making them more likely to cry in the future to get what they want. The food is a primary reinforcer (it satisfies a biological need), and the caregiver becomes a secondary reinforcer through their association with the food. The infant therefore seeks to be close to the caregiver as they are a source of reward. The process is also reinforcing for the caregiver. The infant's crying is unpleasant, so when the caregiver feeds the baby and the crying stops, this acts as negative reinforcement for the caregiver, making them more likely to feed the baby when it cries. This mutual reinforcement strengthens the attachment bond.
Despite its logical appeal, the learning theory of attachment is now largely discredited due to a wealth of contradictory evidence. It is an oversimplified explanation that ignores the complex emotional and cognitive factors involved in attachment.
A clear, focused video from "Tutor2u" that explains both classical and operant conditioning as they apply to attachment, and provides evaluation points.
This article contains a dedicated section on the learning theory explanation of attachment, which is useful for revision and deeper understanding.
This session directly addresses:
This session introduces Social Learning Theory (SLT) as a more nuanced behaviourist explanation for attachment. The focus is on moving beyond direct reinforcement to include observational learning. Key concepts are modelling, imitation, and vicarious reinforcement. It's important to position SLT as a bridge between traditional behaviourism and more cognitive approaches. Use clear examples to show how a child might learn attachment behaviours by observing their parents or siblings. The main critique will be that while SLT can explain the *behaviours* of attachment, it struggles to explain the deep emotional *intensity* of the bond, which is better explained by evolutionary theories.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction: Beyond Direct Reinforcement |
| 30 mins | Lecture: Principles of Social Learning Theory (Bandura) |
| 30 mins | Application: How SLT Explains Attachment Behaviours |
| 30 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Strengths and Weaknesses of SLT for Attachment |
| 15 mins | Plenary: Comparing SLT with Conditioning and Evolutionary Theories |
While classical and operant conditioning focus on direct learning through association and reinforcement, Albert Bandura's Social Learning Theory (SLT) proposed a more indirect mechanism. SLT suggests that people, especially children, learn a great deal of their behaviour by observing and imitating others. This is a more active view of learning, where cognitive processes (thinking, paying attention, remembering) play a crucial role. SLT provides an alternative learning-based explanation for attachment that does not rely solely on food.
SLT proposes that attachment behaviours are learned through observation of role models. The key concepts are:
According to SLT, parents teach their children to love them by modelling attachment behaviours. For example, parents will hug and kiss their infant, and instruct them to hug and kiss other family members. When the child performs these behaviours, they are rewarded with praise and affection (direct reinforcement). They also observe their parents showing affection to each other and see the positive consequences (vicarious reinforcement). This approach suggests that attachment is a set of behaviours learned through a socialisation process, rather than an innate biological drive or a simple response to food.
SLT offers a more plausible explanation than traditional conditioning because it can account for how attachment behaviours are learned without relying on food. However, it still has significant limitations as a complete theory of attachment.
While this video is about aggression, it is the classic demonstration of Social Learning Theory in action. It visually explains the concepts of modelling and imitation.
A comprehensive article explaining all the key concepts of SLT, including the mediational processes, which is useful for a deeper understanding.
This session directly addresses:
This session introduces Bowlby's full evolutionary theory, positioning it as a powerful and comprehensive alternative to the learning theories. The acronym ASCMI (Adaptive, Social Releasers, Critical Period, Monotropy, Internal Working Model) is a useful mnemonic device. This session will focus on the first three components: the evolutionary basis, social releasers, and the critical period. It's crucial to link these concepts back to Lorenz's work. Use evolutionary logic to explain *why* attachment is adaptive. The session should clearly establish Bowlby's theory as the dominant paradigm in attachment research.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction: Rejecting Learning Theory |
| 30 mins | Lecture: An Evolutionary Perspective - Attachment as Adaptive (A) |
| 30 mins | Lecture: Social Releasers (S) and the Critical Period (C) |
| 30 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Identifying Social Releasers and their Function |
| 15 mins | Plenary: Discussion on Monotropy and the IWM (to be covered next session) |
John Bowlby (1969) proposed a revolutionary theory that rejected the idea that attachment was a learned behaviour. Drawing inspiration from ethology (Lorenz) and psychoanalysis, he argued that attachment is an innate, biological system that has evolved to ensure the survival of the infant. In our evolutionary past, infants who stayed close to their caregivers were protected from predators and had a greater chance of surviving to reproduce. Thus, attachment is an adaptive behaviour that is pre-programmed into our genes.
The core of Bowlby's theory is that attachment provides a survival advantage. A baby's tendency to stay close to a caregiver, especially when frightened or in an unfamiliar situation, is a protective mechanism. This proximity-seeking behaviour ensures the infant is fed, kept warm, and safe from harm. This evolutionary perspective explains why attachments are universal across all human cultures and why they are so emotionally intense—they are a matter of life and death from a biological standpoint.
Bowlby argued that babies are born with a set of innate "cute" behaviours called social releasers. These include smiling, cooing, gripping, and having big eyes and a rounded face. Their purpose is to activate the adult attachment system, making adults want to care for the infant. This makes attachment a reciprocal process. Influenced by Lorenz, Bowlby also proposed a critical period for attachment, which he suggested was around the first 2.5 years of life. He later softened this to a "sensitive period," acknowledging that while this is the optimal time for an attachment to form, it is not impossible for one to form later, though it would be much more difficult.
Two other crucial components of Bowlby's theory are Monotropy and the Internal Working Model. Monotropy is the idea that infants form one special, primary attachment that is qualitatively different from all others. This monotropic bond, usually with the mother, forms the foundation of the child's emotional life. The Internal Working Model (IWM) is a mental template for all future relationships, based on this first attachment. A secure and loving first relationship leads to an IWM where the child expects all relationships to be trustworthy and positive. These two concepts are so important that they will be the focus of the next session.
An excellent animated overview from Sprouts that covers the core concepts of Bowlby's theory in an accessible way.
A detailed article that breaks down all the key components of Bowlby's theory (ASCMI) with evaluation points.
This session directly addresses:
This session is a deep dive into what is arguably Bowlby's most significant contribution: the Internal Working Model (IWM). The goal is to ensure students understand that the IWM is a cognitive framework—a schema for relationships—that links early attachment experiences to later life outcomes. Use a flowchart to visually represent this causal chain. Connect the IWM to the concept of the continuity hypothesis. Use case studies or real-world examples to illustrate how different early experiences (secure vs. insecure) can lead to different IWMs and, consequently, different adult relationship styles. This session lays the groundwork for understanding the long-term consequences of attachment, which is central to the summative essay.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Recap of Bowlby's Theory & Introduction to the IWM |
| 35 mins | Lecture: The Internal Working Model as a Relationship Template |
| 30 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Creating IWM Case Studies |
| 25 mins | Discussion: The IWM and Future Parenting |
| 15 mins | Plenary: The Continuity Hypothesis and its Implications |
The Internal Working Model (IWM) is a cognitive framework comprising mental representations for understanding the world, the self, and others. Bowlby proposed that an infant';s first relationship with their primary attachment figure leads to the formation of an IWM of relationships. This model acts as a template for all future relationships. It's a set of expectations about the availability of attachment figures, the likelihood of them providing support during times of stress, and the self's interaction with those figures. In essence, the IWM is a schema for what relationships are supposed to be like.
The IWM is formed based on the quality of the primary attachment. A child whose caregiver is sensitive, responsive, and reliable will develop a positive IWM. This model includes a view of the self as worthy of love and a view of others as trustworthy and helpful. Conversely, a child whose caregiver is rejecting, inconsistent, or neglectful will develop a negative IWM. This model includes a view of the self as unworthy and a view of others as unreliable and rejecting. This IWM then guides the child's expectations and behaviours in subsequent relationships.
(Responsive, sensitive care)
Self = Lovable
Others = Trustworthy
Trusting, open, and healthy.
(Inconsistent, neglectful care)
Self = Unworthy
Others = Rejecting
Anxious, avoidant, or controlling.
The IWM has a powerful influence on a child's future relationships, including friendships and, later, romantic partnerships. A child with a positive IWM will seek out and form functional relationships, behaving in a way that is trusting and open. A child with a negative IWM may struggle to form close relationships, or they may recreate the unhealthy patterns of their first relationship (e.g., being overly clingy or emotionally distant). This is because the IWM is self-perpetuating; it leads people to recreate and reinterpret relationship experiences in line with their existing expectations.
Bowlby argued that the IWM also affects a person';s ability to parent their own children. People tend to base their parenting style on their own experiences of being parented. A person with a positive IWM is likely to replicate the sensitive and responsive parenting they received, allowing them to form a secure attachment with their own child. This explains how attachment styles can be passed down through generations. The continuity between early attachment experiences and later relationships is known as the continuity hypothesis.
This Sprouts video provides a very clear visual explanation of how the Internal Working Model is formed and how it influences later life.
This article has a specific section on the IWM that is excellent for consolidating understanding.
This session directly addresses:
This session focuses on the empirical evidence for the continuity hypothesis—the idea that early attachment styles predict the nature of later relationships. The key study to focus on is Hazan and Shaver';s "Love Quiz." The goal is to explain the study's methodology, findings, and, crucially, its limitations. This is an excellent opportunity to discuss research methods concepts like self-report, volunteer sampling, and correlation vs. causation. The session should conclude by reinforcing that while there is a link between early and later attachment, it is not a deterministic one; other life experiences also play a significant role.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction: The Continuity Hypothesis |
| 30 mins | Lecture: Hazan and Shaver's (1987) "Love Quiz" Study |
| 30 mins | Analysis of Findings: Linking Infant and Adult Attachment Styles |
| 30 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Critiquing the "Love Quiz" Methodology |
| 15 mins | Plenary: Is the Continuity Hypothesis Too Deterministic? |
The continuity hypothesis, a direct extension of Bowlby's Internal Working Model, proposes that there is a clear link between an individual's early attachment style and their later relationships in adulthood. A securely attached infant is expected to grow into an adult who can form trusting and lasting relationships. Conversely, an insecurely attached infant is likely to experience difficulties in their adult relationships, such as being too emotionally close and controlling (insecure-resistant) or being too distant and emotionally unavailable (insecure-avoidant). This hypothesis has been the subject of extensive research.
Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver conducted a classic study to test the continuity hypothesis. They devised a "Love Quiz" which they printed in a local American newspaper. The quiz had two parts. The first part assessed the respondent's current or most important relationship. The second part assessed their general love experiences and asked them to choose which of three statements best described their feelings and experiences in relationships. These three statements were designed to correspond to the three attachment types identified by Ainsworth: secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant.
Hazan and Shaver analysed the first 620 replies from people aged 14 to 82. They found a strong correlation between the infant attachment types and the adult romantic love styles:
These findings provided the first major empirical support for the continuity hypothesis and the idea that the Internal Working Model has a lasting influence.
| Infant Attachment Style | Adult Relationship Style (Hazan & Shaver) |
|---|---|
| Secure (Type B) | Trusting, happy, and confident in the relationship. |
| Insecure-Avoidant (Type A) | Fears intimacy, emotionally distant, and jealous. |
| Insecure-Resistant (Type C) | Obsessive, emotionally intense, and desires excessive closeness. |
While influential, Hazan and Shaver's study has several methodological weaknesses that mean we must be cautious in our conclusions:
This Sprouts video clearly explains the link between early attachment and adult relationships, visually representing the continuity hypothesis.
This article includes a section on Hazan and Shaver's study and the continuity hypothesis, providing a good summary of the key points and criticisms.
This session directly addresses:
This session focuses on Bowlby's influential but controversial Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis. The key is to clearly distinguish between separation and deprivation. Explain the hypothesis: that prolonged separation from the primary caregiver during the critical period can cause irreversible long-term damage. Use Bowlby's own 44 Thieves Study as the primary case study. It's crucial to guide students through a critical evaluation of this study, focusing on its methodological flaws (e.g., researcher bias, correlational data). The session should also touch on the PDD model (Protest, Despair, Detachment) as an observable consequence of separation.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction: Separation vs. Deprivation |
| 30 mins | Lecture: The Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis |
| 30 mins | Case Study: Bowlby's (1944) 44 Juvenile Thieves Study |
| 30 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Critiquing the 44 Thieves Study |
| 15 mins | Discussion: The PDD Model and Short-Term Separation |
It's important to distinguish between two key terms. Separation simply means the child is not in the presence of the primary attachment figure. This is common and not necessarily harmful if it is for short periods and in the presence of a substitute caregiver. Deprivation, however, means the child loses an element of the caregiver's emotional care. This becomes a problem if the separation is prolonged, and the child is deprived of this care, especially during the critical period and with no substitute care available.
In 1951, John Bowlby proposed his famous Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis. He argued that "mother-love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health." His hypothesis stated that continuous, warm, and intimate care from a mother (or permanent mother-substitute) is essential for normal psychological development. Being separated from the mother and deprived of this care during the critical period (the first 2.5 years) would lead to irreversible and damaging long-term consequences. He identified two main areas of damage: Intellectual Development (abnormally low IQ) and Emotional Development (leading to a condition he called Affectionless Psychopathy).
To support his hypothesis, Bowlby conducted a study on a group of adolescents at the child guidance clinic where he worked. The sample consisted of 44 teenagers accused of stealing (the "thieves") and a control group of 44 non-criminal but emotionally disturbed teenagers. Bowlby interviewed the children and their families to build a record of their early life experiences. He found that 14 of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths (lacking affection, guilt, and empathy). Of these 14, 12 had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first two years of life. In contrast, only 5 of the remaining 30 thieves had experienced such separations. In the control group, only 2 of the 44 had experienced long separations. Bowlby concluded that early maternal deprivation was directly linked to affectionless psychopathy and criminal behaviour.
| Group | Number with Prolonged Separation | Number without Prolonged Separation |
|---|---|---|
| Affectionless Psychopaths (Thieves) | 12 | 2 |
| Other Thieves | 5 | 25 |
| Control Group | 2 | 42 |
Bowlby's hypothesis was highly influential but is now considered flawed. The evidence he used has been heavily criticised. The 44 Thieves study had major methodological issues: Bowlby himself conducted the assessments for affectionless psychopathy and the interviews with the families, knowing which teenagers he expected to show signs of the condition. This creates a high risk of researcher bias. The data was also correlational, meaning it only showed a link between separation and psychopathy, not that one caused the other. Other factors, such as family conflict or poverty, could have caused both the separation and the later behavioural problems. Furthermore, later research (e.g., Lewis, 1954) failed to replicate his findings. While the idea that early experiences are important is valid, Bowlby's conclusion that deprivation is irreversible and inevitably leads to psychopathy is now seen as too simplistic and deterministic.
A detailed video that explains the hypothesis, the 44 Thieves Study, the PDD model, and key evaluation points.
An excellent article for revision, covering the theory, the key study, and the main points of evaluation in a clear format.
This session directly addresses:
This session focuses on the effects of institutionalisation, using the Romanian orphan studies as a powerful case study. The first goal is to clearly define and differentiate privation (never forming an attachment) from deprivation (losing an attachment). The main focus will be on Rutter's English and Romanian Adoptee (ERA) study. Explain the study's quasi-experimental design and its key findings regarding the "dose-dependent" effect of institutionalisation. This is a perfect opportunity to discuss the concept of a sensitive period and the potential for recovery. The ethical implications and real-world applications of this research are also crucial discussion points.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction: Privation vs. Deprivation and the Romanian Context |
| 30 mins | Lecture: Rutter's ERA Study - Procedure and Key Findings |
| 30 mins | Analysis: The Effects of Institutionalisation (Disinhibited Attachment, etc.) |
| 30 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Evaluating the Romanian Orphan Studies |
| 15 mins | Plenary: Real-World Applications and the Importance of Early Intervention |
Michael Rutter (1981) made a crucial distinction that Bowlby had overlooked. Deprivation refers to the loss of or damage to an existing attachment. Privation refers to the complete failure to form any attachment in the first place. Rutter argued that the severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with "deprivation" was more likely the result of privation. The unique and tragic situation of Romanian orphanages in the late 1980s and 1990s provided a natural experiment to study the effects of privation.
Rutter et al. (2011) have followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain to test to what extent good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions. The physical, cognitive, and emotional development of the adoptees has been assessed at ages 4, 6, 11, and 15. A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time have served as a control group. The key finding was that recovery was possible, but its extent depended on the age of adoption. The mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared with 86 for those adopted between 6 months and 2 years, and 77 for those adopted after 2 years. This "dose-dependent" effect suggests that the longer a child experiences privation, the more severe the long-term consequences.
The Romanian orphan studies have identified a distinct pattern of behaviour associated with institutionalisation and privation:
These studies have provided invaluable insights into the effects of privation, but they also have limitations.
A video explaining the background, procedure, and findings of Rutter's ERA study.
A historical video showing the stark differences in development between home-reared babies and orphans, providing context for later research.
This session directly addresses:
This session introduces the 'Strange Situation';, one of the most famous and influential procedures in developmental psychology. The primary goal is to ensure students understand the methodology: it is a controlled observation designed to assess the quality of an infant's attachment. Go through the eight episodes step-by-step, explaining the purpose of each one. It is crucial to detail the four key behaviours being observed (exploration/secure base, separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, reunion behaviour). Use video clips of the procedure to make it tangible. The session should set the stage for the next lesson, which will detail the attachment types identified through this procedure.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction: Measuring the Quality of Attachment |
| 30 mins | Lecture: The ';Strange Situation' Procedure (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970) |
| 30 mins | Analysis: The Four Key Behaviours Observed |
| 30 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Predicting Infant Behaviour in Each Episode |
| 15 mins | Plenary: Evaluating the Methodology (Controlled Observation) |
While Bowlby's theory explained *why* attachment forms, Mary Ainsworth's work focused on *how* it varies in quality. She wanted to develop a method to objectively measure the differences in attachment security between infants. Based on her naturalistic observations in Uganda and Baltimore, she developed the 'Strange Situation' (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970), a controlled observation procedure designed to measure the security of attachment a child displays towards a caregiver.
The procedure takes place in a laboratory playroom with a two-way mirror, allowing researchers to observe unobtrusively. It consists of eight scripted episodes, each lasting about three minutes. The procedure is designed to create mild stress for the infant by introducing a stranger and having the caregiver leave the room. The infant's reactions to these stressors reveal their attachment style.
Ainsworth and her team systematically recorded the infant';s behaviour, focusing on four key indicators of attachment quality:
The Strange Situation has been a highly influential research tool, but it is not without its critics.
A classic video that shows the procedure being carried out and explains the different attachment styles observed.
A very detailed article that explains the procedure, the attachment types, and the main evaluation points.
This session directly addresses:
This session builds directly on the last one, detailing the three main attachment types that Ainsworth identified from the Strange Situation. The goal is for students to be able to describe the specific behaviours associated with each type (Secure, Insecure-Avoidant, Insecure-Resistant) across the four key observation criteria. A comparison table is an excellent visual aid for this. It's also crucial to link these attachment types to the caregiver's sensitivity, introducing the Caregiver Sensitivity Hypothesis. This provides an explanation for *why* these different attachment styles develop. Conclude by briefly mentioning the later addition of a fourth type (disorganised) to show that the theory has evolved.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Recap of the Strange Situation & Introduction to Attachment Types |
| 25 mins | Lecture: Secure Attachment (Type B) |
| 30 mins | Lecture: The Insecure Attachments (Type A and Type C) |
| 30 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Case Study Identification |
| 20 mins | Discussion: The Caregiver Sensitivity Hypothesis |
Based on her observations in the Strange Situation, Ainsworth identified three distinct patterns of attachment. Each type is characterised by a different set of behaviours regarding exploration, separation, stranger anxiety, and reunion. These types are thought to reflect the quality of the infant-caregiver relationship.
This is the most common and healthiest attachment type, found in about 60-75% of British toddlers in Ainsworth's original research. Securely attached infants explore happily but regularly go back to their caregiver (secure base). They show moderate separation distress and moderate stranger anxiety. Crucially, they require and accept comfort from the caregiver in the reunion stage and are easily soothed. This type of attachment is associated with caregivers who are sensitive and responsive to the infant's needs.
This type was found in about 20-25% of the toddlers. These infants explore freely but do not seek proximity or show secure base behaviour. They show little or no reaction when their caregiver leaves and little stranger anxiety. They also make little effort to make contact when the caregiver returns and may even avoid such contact. This attachment type is associated with caregivers who are often unavailable or rejecting, and who may discourage crying and encourage premature independence.
This type was found in about 3% of the toddlers. These infants seek greater proximity than others and so explore less. They show huge stranger and separation distress but they resist comfort when reunited with their caregiver. They may even show anger, pushing the caregiver away. This ambivalent behaviour is why it is called "resistant." This attachment type is associated with caregivers who are inconsistent in their responses to the infant—sometimes responsive, sometimes ignoring them.
| Behaviour | Secure (Type B) | Insecure-Avoidant (Type A) | Insecure-Resistant (Type C) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exploration | Enthusiastic, uses caregiver as secure base. | High, explores freely, no secure base. | Low, stays close to caregiver. |
| Separation Anxiety | Moderate distress. | Low, indifferent. | High distress. |
| Stranger Anxiety | Moderate, wary of stranger. | Low, indifferent. | High distress. |
| Reunion Behaviour | Positive, easily soothed. | Avoids contact, does not seek comfort. | Seeks and resists comfort, angry. |
Ainsworth didn't just categorise the infants; she also proposed an explanation for why these differences exist. Her Caregiver Sensitivity Hypothesis suggests that a mother's behaviour towards her infant is the primary determinant of attachment style. Sensitive, responsive mothers who correctly interpret their infant's signals and respond appropriately tend to have securely attached babies. Mothers who are rejecting or unavailable tend to have insecure-avoidant babies, and mothers who are inconsistent in their care tend to have insecure-resistant babies. This places the emphasis firmly on the caregiver's behaviour (nurture) as the cause of attachment quality.
An excellent video from "Bear it in MIND" that not only shows the different attachment types but also links them to the Caregiver Sensitivity Hypothesis.
This article provides a detailed breakdown of the behaviours associated with each of the three main attachment types.
This session directly addresses:
This session explores the universality of attachment theory by examining cross-cultural research. The key study is Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg's meta-analysis. The goal is to present their findings, which show both similarities (secure attachment is always the most common) and striking differences in the prevalence of insecure types. Use a world map or chart to visually represent the data. This session is crucial for developing students' critical thinking about cultural bias in psychology. Guide them to understand that these variations are likely due to different child-rearing practices, and that the 'Strange Situation' itself may be an ethnocentric tool.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction: Is Attachment Universal? |
| 30 mins | Lecture: Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg's (1988) Meta-Analysis |
| 30 mins | Analysis of Findings: Similarities and Differences Across Cultures |
| 30 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Explaining the Variations |
| 15 mins | Plenary: The Issue of Imposed Etic and Cultural Bias |
Bowlby's evolutionary theory claims that attachment is an innate and universal human trait, necessary for survival. If this is true, we should expect to see similar attachment patterns across all cultures. However, since child-rearing practices vary significantly around the world, it is also possible that attachment styles are culturally specific. Cross-cultural research aims to investigate this question by comparing attachment patterns in different countries.
To investigate this, Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg conducted a large-scale meta-analysis. This is not a single study, but a statistical analysis of the results of many different studies. They located 32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation had been used to investigate the proportions of infants with different attachment types. These 32 studies were conducted in 8 different countries and involved over 2000 children. This allowed them to look for overall patterns in the data.
The findings were revealing:
| Country | Secure (B) % | Insecure-Avoidant (A) % | Insecure-Resistant (C) % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Great Britain | 75 | 22 | 3 |
| Germany | 57 | 35 | 8 |
| Japan | 68 | 5 | 27 |
| Israel | 64 | 7 | 29 |
The cultural differences observed are likely linked to different parenting styles. For example, German culture places a high value on independence, so parents may discourage proximity-seeking behaviour, leading to children being classified as insecure-avoidant. In Japan, mothers and infants are rarely separated, so the Strange Situation is highly stressful for them, leading to high levels of separation anxiety and a classification of insecure-resistant. This suggests that attachment styles are not innate but are a product of cultural norms.
A detailed video from "Bear it in MIND" that explains the meta-analysis, its findings, and the critical evaluation points, including the concept of imposed etic.
An article that provides a clear summary of the key studies and the debate around universality vs. cultural specificity.
This session consolidates learning across the module, addressing:
This session is a capstone for the theoretical part of the module, designed to consolidate students' critical evaluation skills before the assignment workshops. The goal is to review the major debates and methodological issues that have run through the previous sessions. Focus on key themes: the validity of the Strange Situation, the temperament hypothesis as an alternative explanation, the issue of correlation vs. causation, and the deterministic nature of some theories. This is a revision and synthesis session. Use it to explicitly model how to construct an evaluative argument for an essay, linking different pieces of evidence together to form a coherent critique.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 20 mins | Debate 1: Is the Strange Situation a Valid Measure? |
| 30 mins | Debate 2: The Temperament Hypothesis - An Alternative Explanation |
| 30 mins | Debate 3: Correlation vs. Causation in Attachment Research |
| 25 mins | Breakout Room Activity: Constructing an Evaluation Paragraph |
| 15 mins | Plenary: The Dangers of Determinism and Looking Ahead to Assignments |
A major debate centres on the validity of the Strange Situation. Does it actually measure the quality of a child's attachment relationship, or is it just measuring how the child reacts to an unusual environment? Kagan (1982) argued that the procedure is simply measuring the child's innate temperament (their genetically influenced personality). A child with a naturally anxious temperament might be classified as insecure-resistant, while a bolder, more independent child might be classified as insecure-avoidant, regardless of their mother's sensitivity. This temperament hypothesis is a major challenge to Ainsworth's Caregiver Sensitivity Hypothesis.
Much of the research that links attachment style to later outcomes (e.g., Hazan and Shaver's Love Quiz) is correlational. This means it shows a relationship between two variables, but it cannot prove that one causes the other. For example, a third factor, such as the child's temperament or the family's socioeconomic status, could be responsible for both the infant's attachment style and their later relationship success. This is a fundamental limitation of much of the research supporting the continuity hypothesis.
Just because early attachment style is correlated with adult relationship quality does not mean the former *causes* the latter. A third variable, like innate temperament, could be the true cause of both.
Theories like Bowlby's Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis and the Continuity Hypothesis can be seen as overly deterministic. They suggest that our early experiences lock us into a path from which it is difficult to escape. This has serious implications, as it can create a self-fulfilling prophecy and cause undue anxiety for parents. Modern attachment researchers take a more probabilistic view. While early attachment is highly influential, it is not destiny. Later life events, such as positive school experiences, supportive friendships, and loving romantic partnerships, can all help an individual to revise their Internal Working Model and develop an "earned secure" attachment.
A strong evaluation of attachment theory requires synthesising these different points. For example, the cultural variations found by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg can be used to question the validity of the Strange Situation as a universal tool. The temperament hypothesis challenges the core assumption of Ainsworth's work. The correlational nature of much of the research weakens the claims of the continuity hypothesis. A sophisticated understanding of attachment acknowledges the powerful insights of the theories while also recognising their limitations and the complex interplay of nature, nurture, and later life experiences.
This workshop is designed to help students successfully meet the criteria for the formative assessment, which links to:
This session is entirely dedicated to deconstructing the formative assignment. The goal is not to give students the answers, but to equip them with the structure, knowledge, and critical thinking skills to produce a high-quality essay. Use a step-by-step approach, breaking down each part of the question. Emphasise the importance of structure, critical analysis (the 'issues'), and correct referencing. The interactive activities should be focused on practical application, such as drafting a thesis statement or outlining a paragraph. Remind students that this is a formative piece designed to provide feedback for the more heavily weighted summative assignment.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Session Introduction & Deconstruction of the Assignment Question |
| 30 mins | Lecture/Workshop: How to Structure the Essay (Intro, Body, Conclusion) |
| 20 mins | Breakout Activity: Deconstructing a Sample Paragraph |
| 30 mins | Workshop: Achieving a Distinction - Moving from Description to Critical Analysis |
| 15 mins | Live Group Activity: Writing a Thesis Statement |
| 10 mins | Academic Integrity, Formatting, and Referencing Quiz |
The first step to a successful essay is to fully understand what the question is asking. Let's break down the formative assignment task.
Write a 600-700 word essay exploring the stages of attachment.
Your essay should:
Formatting: Justified alignment, single spaced, 12 pt Times New Roman font, with appropriate referencing (Harvard style recommended).
This is a multi-faceted question. It is not just a description of the stages. It requires analysis, linkage between different topics from the module, and comparison. A common mistake is to only describe the stages without addressing the other bullet points. A strong essay will integrate all these components into a coherent argument.
A well-structured essay is easier to write and easier to read. For a 600-700 word essay, a clear and concise structure is essential. Consider the following framework:
To achieve a higher grade (Distinguished, 80+), you must go beyond simply describing the theories. The marking rubric rewards ";extensive evaluation and synthesis of ideas" and "substantial original thinking." Here’s how to do it:
Professional presentation is key. Adhere strictly to the formatting guidelines. Your work must be academically rigorous.
In-text citation: Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that infants formed attachments in a series of predictable stages.
Reference list entry: Schaffer, H. R., & Emerson, P. E. (1964). The development of social attachments in infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 29(3), 1-77.
This workshop is crucial for the summative assessment, which covers a broad range of the module's learning outcomes, including:
This final session is dedicated to the summative assignment, which requires a much deeper and more sustained argument than the formative piece. The key is to guide students in formulating a strong thesis and using evidence from across the module to support it. Focus on the higher-level skills required: analysing long-term consequences, evaluating cultural differences, and critically appraising research studies. Use the provided marking rubric for 'Distinction' as a roadmap for excellence. The activities should be practical, helping students to plan their argument and select appropriate research to analyse.
| Duration | Activity |
|---|---|
| 15 mins | Introduction & Detailed Deconstruction of the Summative Question |
| 20 mins | Workshop: Developing a Strong Thesis Statement & Breakout Room Clinic |
| 30 mins | Workshop: Structuring a 2000-word Essay & Group Outline Activity |
| 30 mins | Workshop: How to Critically Analyse a Research Study (Strengths/Weaknesses) |
| 15 mins | Brainstorming Activity: Selecting Appropriate Research Studies |
| 10 mins | Final Q&A, Referencing Reminder, and Submission Guidance |
The summative assignment requires a comprehensive, evidence-based response to a complex question. It assesses your understanding of the entire module. Let's break it down.
Write a 2000-word essay in response to the question: In what ways might problems/issues experienced during the early stages of attachment manifest over the course of a human’s development?
In your essay, you must:
Formatting: 2000-3000 words, Justified alignment, single spaced, 12 pt Times New Roman font, with appropriate referencing (Harvard style recommended).
The core of this question is about long-term consequences. You need to build an argument (a thesis) about how and why early attachment issues have lasting effects. This involves drawing on concepts like Bowlby's Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis, the Internal Working Model, and research like the Romanian orphan studies.
A 2000-word essay needs a strong, clear thesis to guide the entire piece. Your thesis is your main argument, the answer you will prove throughout the essay.
Example Thesis Statement: "While early attachment disruptions can lead to significant long-term developmental challenges in social and emotional functioning, as predicted by Bowlby's Internal Working Model, the manifestation of these issues is not deterministic and is significantly mediated by individual resilience and cultural context."
This thesis acknowledges the problems but also introduces the nuance required by the question (individual/cultural differences). A suggested structure:
The prompt requires you to "analyse the findings... noting the strengths and weaknesses of each study." This is a core skill for achieving a high grade. Use the "PEEL" (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) structure for your analysis paragraphs.
| Component | Guidance |
|---|---|
| Point | State the strength/weakness. "A key strength of Rutter's ERA study is its longitudinal design." |
| Evidence/Explain | Explain what this means and why it's a strength/weakness. "By following the same group of children over many years, researchers could track the real long-term effects of institutionalisation, rather than just taking a snapshot in time. This provides more valid data on the course of development." |
| Link | Link it back to the essay question. "This strengthens the conclusion that problems encountered in early attachment, such as privation, can indeed manifest across the course of human development, as the effects were still visible years after adoption." |
| Counterpoint (for Distinction) | Acknowledge any counter-arguments. "However, a weakness of this longitudinal approach is participant attrition, where some children may drop out of the study over time, potentially leaving a biased sample of those who are coping better." |