A-Level Revision Aid: This resource is designed to support your revision. Content may contain errors. If you find a discrepancy with your class teaching, your teacher is correct — please let us know at alevelrevise@scott.scottrix.co.uk.
Attachment
Year 1 / ASYear 2 / A-LevelAQA, Edexcel, OCR
A-Level Psychology revision on Attachment: caregiver-infant interactions, Schaffer's stages, Lorenz and Harlow, learning and evolutionary explanations, Ainsworth's Strange Situation, cultural variations, maternal deprivation and Romanian orphans.
Evaluate animal studies of attachment: Lorenz (imprinting) and Harlow (wire/cloth mothers) (AQA 4.1.3)
Compare learning theory and Bowlby's evolutionary explanation of attachment, with critical period, monotropy and IWM (AQA 4.1.3)
Describe and evaluate Ainsworth's Strange Situation and attachment types A/B/C (D) (AQA 4.1.3)
Evaluate cultural variations in attachment (van IJzendoorn, Takahashi) (AQA 4.1.3)
Evaluate maternal deprivation (44 thieves), institutionalisation and Romanian orphan research (Rutter, ERA); influence on later relationships (AQA 4.1.3)
📋 Key Definitions and Core Concepts
Attachment: A close two-way emotional bond between two people (usually infant and caregiver) in which each seeks closeness and feels distress on separation.
Reciprocity: Two-way turn-taking interaction between caregiver and infant, where each responds to the other's signals (Brazelton: 'dance-like').
Interactional synchrony: Mirroring of each other's actions and emotions in a coordinated, simultaneous way (Meltzoff and Moore 1977: infants imitated adult tongue protrusion and facial expressions).
Monotropy: Bowlby's claim that infants form one special attachment (usually to the mother) which is of central importance to development; all later attachments build on it.
Critical period: The biologically determined window (Bowlby: around 6 months to 2.5 years) within which an attachment must form or development may be permanently damaged.
Internal working model (IWM): A mental representation of the first attachment relationship that acts as a template for all later relationships (parenting, peer, romantic - Hazan and Shaver).
Social releaser: Innate infant behaviours (crying, smiling, cute features) that elicit caregiving responses from adults and trigger the attachment process.
Imprinting: Lorenz's term for rapid, irreversible attachment formed by precocial animals (goslings) to the first moving object seen within a critical period after hatching.
Institutionalisation: The effects of growing up in an institution (e.g. an orphanage): disinhibited attachment, intellectual underfunctioning and delayed physical development (Rutter's ERA study).
Maternal deprivation: Bowlby's term for the loss of the mother-figure's emotional care (separation or failure to form), proposed to cause delinquency, affectionless psychopathy and developmental delay.
📌 Key Points
Interactions: reciprocity (two-way turn-taking, Brazelton 'dance'), interactional synchrony (mirrored actions/emotions, Meltzoff and Moore 1977); support bonding, hard to observe accurately
Schaffer (1964, Glasgow, 60 infants): asocial (0-6 weeks), indiscriminate (6 weeks-6 months, accepts anyone), specific (7 months+, one special attachment, separation/stranger anxiety), multiple (10-11 months+)
Animal studies: Lorenz (1935) goslings imprinted on first moving object, critical period, irreversible; Harlow (1958) rhesus monkeys preferred cloth 'contact comfort' mother over wire milk mother
Learning theory: Dollard and Miller - classical (food = UCS) + operant (feeding as primary reinforcer); Bowlby evolutionary: monotropy, critical period 0-2.5yrs, IWM, social releasers, continuity hypothesis
Ainsworth (1971, Baltimore): secure B 66%, insecure-avoidant A 22%, insecure-resistant C 12%; disorganised (D, Main and Solomon 1990); measures proximity-seeking, separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, reunion behaviour
Cultural variations: van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) meta-analysis - secure most common everywhere but variations (China/Japan more resistant, Germany more avoidant); Takahashi (1990) Japanese infants harder to test
Maternal deprivation: Bowlby 44 thieves (1944) - 86% affectionless psychopaths had prolonged early separation; institutionalisation: Rutter ERA (Romanian orphans) - disinhibited attachment, but adoption before 6 months largely reversed effects
Caregiver-infant interactions and Schaffer's stages (AQA 4.1.3)
Attachment forms through early caregiver-infant interactions. Reciprocity is two-way turn-taking: each partner responds to the other's signals and adjusts their behaviour in turn (Brazelton et al. 1975 described it as a 'dance' - the infant responds to the caregiver's timing, and the caregiver to the infant's). Interactional synchrony is mirroring: caregiver and infant coordinate their actions and emotions in simultaneous, rhythm-matched ways - Meltzoff and Moore (1977) found infants as young as 2-3 weeks imitated an adult's tongue protrusion, mouth opening and facial expressions, suggesting innate imitation. Isabella et al. (1989) found more synchrony predicted a stronger attachment. These interactions are hard to observe (infant behaviour is subtle) - researchers use filmed observations with multiple observers to improve inter-rater reliability.
Schaffer (1964, Glasgow longitudinal study): 60 working-class infants visited monthly for a year, mothers reporting separation anxiety (protest at caregiver leaving) and stranger anxiety (protest at unfamiliar people). Four stages: (1) asocial (0-6 weeks) - responses to objects and people are similar; (2) indiscriminate attachment (6 weeks-6 months) - preference for people over objects, accepts care from anyone; (3) specific attachment (7 months+) - one special attachment forms (usually mother), separation and stranger anxiety appear; (4) multiple attachments (10-11 months+) - secondary attachments form (father, grandparents, siblings). Fathers: Schaffer found 75% of infants formed an attachment with the father by 18 months; Grossmann and Grossmann (2002) found fathers' play (stimulation) mattered more than their emotional care, suggesting fathers take a different role; Field (1978) found primary-caregiver fathers showed as much interactional synchrony as mothers, suggesting the father's role depends on responsiveness, not gender.
Evaluation (AO3):
Methodological strength: longitudinal design (same infants over time) shows individual development, and mothers were observers (reducing stranger effects) - but this risks social desirability bias in reports.
Limitation - observer bias: infants cannot report; inferring attachment from crying is subjective, and filming improves reliability but infant movements (mouth movements) are hard to code (Meltzoff and Moore acknowledged this).
Limitation - cultural bias: Schaffer's stages are based on 1960s Glasgow working-class families; the multiple-attachment stage timing differs across cultures (in collectivist families, multiple attachments form earlier - Tronick's Efe study).
Support from Meltzoff and Moore: controlled filmed observation with blinded observers supports interactional synchrony; but critics (e.g. the 'tongue protrusion is just imitation' debate) argue infant responses may be reflexive, not social - Koepke et al. failed to replicate, though Meltzoff and Moore countered that their replication was flawed.
Animal studies: Lorenz and Harlow (AQA 4.1.3)
Lorenz (1935) - imprinting: random division of a goose clutch; half hatched with their mother, half in an incubator with Lorenz as the first moving object. Findings: incubator goslings followed Lorenz and ignored the real mother; imprinting occurred within a critical period (12-17 hours after hatching) and was irreversible; goslings imprinted on Lorenz later tried to mate with humans (sexual imprinting). Lorenz concluded attachment is innate and biologically programmed.
Harlow (1958) - contact comfort: 16 rhesus monkeys separated from mothers at birth and raised with two surrogate 'mothers': one wire mesh (milk) and one covered in soft cloth. Findings: monkeys spent most time with the cloth mother, visiting the wire mother only to feed - contact comfort matters more than food; when frightened, the monkeys ran to the cloth mother; monkeys raised by surrogates showed abnormal social and sexual behaviour and were abusive (or indifferent) parents later - supporting the idea that early attachment shapes later development (internal working model). Harlow set a critical period of 90 days: monkeys deprived beyond this were permanently damaged.
Evaluation (AO3):
Strength - support for innate attachment and contact comfort: both studies challenge the 'cupboard love' (food-based) learning-theory account - goslings imprinted on a non-food object and monkeys chose comfort over food.
Limitation - generalisability: geese are precocial and monkeys' attachment differs from human attachment; imprinting has no direct human equivalent (though Klappenbach noted evidence of human 'imprinting-like' phenomena - e.g. Bassett 2005, babies born without programming for attachment).Counter: monkeys are close relatives of humans, so Harlow's findings inform human development better than rodent studies would.
Limitation - ethics (Harlow): severe, lasting harm was inflicted on monkeys (isolation, abusive parenting), which would breach modern BPS guidelines; Lorenz's study was less harmful (relocation).
Strength - practical application: Harlow's findings influenced orphanage care (attachment figures, comfort) and animal welfare legislation; both studies support Bowlby's evolutionary framework.
Explanations of attachment: learning theory and Bowlby's evolutionary theory (AQA 4.1.3)
Learning theory (Dollard and Miller, 1950) - the 'cupboard love' explanation: attachment is learned through association and reinforcement. Classical conditioning: food (unconditioned stimulus) produces pleasure (unconditioned response); the caregiver (neutral stimulus) is paired with feeding, becoming a conditioned stimulus producing pleasure - attachment forms. Operant conditioning: the infant is fed when it cries (negative reinforcement - crying stops discomfort), and the caregiver is rewarded by the infant's smile (positive reinforcement). Feeding is a primary reinforcer and the caregiver a secondary reinforcer.
Bowlby's evolutionary theory (1969): attachment is innate, evolved because it aids survival (protection from predators, nourishment). Key claims: monotropy (one special attachment, usually to the mother, of central importance); the critical period (around 6 months to 2.5 years - attachment must form or development is damaged); social releasers (innate infant behaviours - crying, smiling, cute faces - that elicit caregiving); the internal working model (a template of the first attachment shaping all later relationships) and the continuity hypothesis (secure early attachment predicts secure later relationships).
Evaluation (AO3):
Learning theory - limitation: contradicted by animal studies - Lorenz's goslings imprinted without food and Harlow's monkeys preferred comfort over milk; Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found 39% of infants' primary attachments were not to the person who fed them, directly refuting cupboard love.
Learning theory - strength: some elements are valid - reinforcement clearly shapes some infant-caregiver behaviour (feeding soothes), and the theory is scientific (testable, based on conditioning principles); but it is reductionist, ignoring the infant's active social role.
Bowlby - support: Lorenz and Harlow support innate attachment and critical periods; Hazan and Shaver (1987) - the love quiz found adults' romantic attachment styles matched their early attachment types, supporting the internal working model; Bailey et al. (2007) - mothers' attachment style predicted their infants' attachment (IWM continuity).
Bowlby - limitations: monotropy is overstated - Rutter argued all attachment figures matter (not just the mother), and Schaffer found multiple attachments were common and healthy; the critical period is better described as a sensitive period - Romanian orphan research shows late adoption can largely reverse early damage; the theory risks maternal determinism (pressuring women to stay home) and is partly based on 1940s mothers working in wartime factories.
Temperament alternative (Kagan): infants' innate personality (temperament) may drive attachment quality rather than caregiver sensitivity - a confound in sensitivity-based explanations.
Ainsworth's Strange Situation and cultural variations (AQA 4.1.3)
Ainsworth's Strange Situation (1971, Baltimore) is a controlled observation of infants aged 12-18 months with their mother and a stranger, using eight episodes (including two separations and two reunions) to measure proximity-seeking, exploration (safe-base behaviour), separation anxiety, stranger anxiety and reunion behaviour. Types: secure (Type B, ~66% of US infants) - mother used as safe base, moderate separation and stranger anxiety, seeks and is comforted on reunion; insecure-avoidant (Type A, ~22%) - high exploration, low separation/stranger anxiety, ignores mother on reunion (associated with rejecting, unresponsive caregiving); insecure-resistant (Type C, ~12%) - low exploration, high separation/stranger anxiety, ambivalent reunion (seeks contact but resists comfort; associated with inconsistent caregiving). Main and Solomon (1990) later added disorganised (Type D) - no consistent pattern, associated with abuse.
Cultural variations: van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) meta-analysis of 32 studies across 8 countries - secure attachment was the most common type everywhere, but variations existed: China and Japan showed higher resistant (C) rates, West Germany higher avoidant (A) rates; variation within countries was 1.5 times greater than between countries, suggesting culture affects caregiving style, not the attachment process itself. Takahashi (1990) - 60 middle-class Japanese infants: virtually no avoidant attachments and 32% resistant; 90% of Japanese infants were so distressed by the final separation episode (the seventh) that it was stopped - showing the Strange Situation is culturally biased (Japanese infants are rarely left alone, so the procedure over-measures anxiety). Grossmann and Grossmann (German study) - more avoidant attachments, consistent with German culture's valuing of independence.
Evaluation (AO3):
Strength - reliability: highly standardised procedure with consistent coding categories; inter-rater reliability is high (observers agree on type), and the meta-analysis supports replication across cultures.
Limitation - ecological validity: artificial setting (lab, strangers, separations imposed); infants' behaviour may differ in natural home settings.
Limitation - cultural bias: designed on US middle-class samples; imposed etic - Takahashi's finding that the procedure distressed Japanese infants shows it measures anxiety, not attachment, in some cultures; Temperament (Kagan) is a confound - infant personality, not caregiving, may drive type.
Limitation - the caregiver's role: the Strange Situation measures attachment to the mother only; multiple attachments are ignored.
Support - predictive validity: attachment type predicts later outcomes (friendship, romantic relationships, mental health), suggesting the categories capture something real.
Maternal deprivation, Romanian orphans and institutionalisation (AQA 4.1.3)
Maternal deprivation (Bowlby, 1944, 44 Thieves): Bowlby compared 44 adolescent thieves (referred to a child guidance clinic) with 44 emotionally disturbed but non-delinquent controls. Findings: 86% of the affectionless psychopaths (unable to feel guilt or empathy) had experienced prolonged early separation from their mothers (before age 5), versus few controls; 39% of thieves overall had separations versus 5% of controls. Bowlby concluded prolonged separation causes affectionless psychopathy, delinquency and developmental delay - the basis of his maternal deprivation hypothesis.
Institutionalisation and Romanian orphans: Rutter et al.'s English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) study (1998, 2010) followed 165 Romanian orphans adopted into UK families (severe institutional deprivation under Ceausescu) against 52 UK adoptees. Findings: orphans adopted before 6 months showed near-normal development; those adopted after 6 months showed disinhibited attachment (indiscriminate friendliness to strangers), intellectual underfunctioning (lower IQ, ~4 points per 6 months of deprivation) and delayed physical growth; effects persisted to age 11-23 but were partially reversed. Zeanah et al. (2009, Bucharest Early Intervention Project): institutionalised children showed more disorganised (D) attachments than fostered children, supporting the damage of institutional care. Key institutional effects: disinhibited attachment, intellectual underfunctioning and delayed physical development.
Influence on later relationships (IWM): Hazan and Shaver (1987) - the 'love quiz' of 620 adults found early attachment types predicted adult romantic styles (secure adults trusted partners; avoidant feared intimacy); McCarthy (1999) - insecure-resistant women had the worst adult friendships and relationships; Bailey et al. (2007) - mothers' attachment style predicted how they parented their own infants (IWM continuity).
Evaluation (AO3):
44 Thieves - limitations: Bowlby conducted the interviews himself (researcher bias), the 'affectionless psychopathy' diagnosis was subjective, retrospective data (mothers may have misremembered separations), and the study is correlational - confounding variables (poverty, trauma) could explain delinquency; the sample was small and biased (already disturbed).
ERA - strengths: a natural experiment (adoption could not be manipulated), longitudinal (persistence over time), and a matched control group - high validity for measuring institutionalisation effects.
ERA - practical application: informed adoption policy (adoptions before 6 months prioritised) and improved orphanage care worldwide.
Counterpoint - recovery: Rutter emphasised resilience: adoption before 6 months largely reversed effects, so the critical period is better described as a sensitive period; late-adopted children also improved over time (though disinhibited attachment persisted).
Confounding variables (ERA): Romanian orphans suffered malnutrition, disease and neglect as well as emotional deprivation - Rutter separated these (he identified 'deprivation' itself as the key factor via the ERA and his earlier 4-to-1 ratio), but full separation of variables is impossible.
💡 Worked Example
Exam-style: AQA 4.1.3 (16 marks): Outline and evaluate Bowlby's explanation of attachment.
Mark-scheme logic: 16-mark essay structure (AO1 = 6 marks description, AO3 = 10 marks evaluation). AO1 paragraph 1: Bowlby (1969) proposed an evolutionary explanation - attachment is innate because it aids survival; monotropy (one special attachment to the mother-figure); the critical period (6 months to 2.5 years); social releasers (crying, smiling) elicit caregiving. AO1 paragraph 2: the internal working model is a template of the first attachment shaping all later relationships; the continuity hypothesis predicts secure early attachment leads to secure later relationships. AO3 point 1 (support from animal studies): Lorenz (imprinting, critical period) and Harlow (contact comfort) support innate attachment and critical periods. AO3 point 2 (support from human research): Hazan and Shaver (1987) love quiz - early attachment predicted adult romantic styles; Bailey et al. (2007) - mothers' attachment predicted their infants' attachment. AO3 point 3 (monotropy overstated): Schaffer and Emerson - multiple attachments common and healthy; Rutter - all attachment figures matter, not just the mother. AO3 point 4 (sensitive not critical): Romanian orphan research shows late adoption can largely reverse early damage - 'critical' period is better described as sensitive. AO3 point 5 (determinism/social implications): maternal determinism pressures women to stay home; temperament (Kagan) may explain attachment quality instead. Conclusion: the evolutionary account has strong converging support but monotropy and the critical period are overstated.
❓ Practice Questions & Mark Schemes
Outline the Strange Situation procedure and compare secure and insecure-resistant attachment types. (8 marks)
Answer: Ainsworth's Strange Situation (Baltimore, 1971) is a controlled observation of infants aged 12-18 months with their mother and a stranger, using episodes of separation and reunion to measure proximity-seeking, exploration, separation anxiety, stranger anxiety and reunion behaviour. Secure attachment (Type B, about 66% of US infants): the mother is used as a safe base for exploration, moderate separation and stranger anxiety, seeks contact and is comforted on reunion. Insecure-resistant (Type C, about 12%): high stranger and separation anxiety, low exploration, ambivalent reunion - seeks contact but resists being comforted; associated with inconsistent caregiving. Evaluation: the controlled procedure is reliable and replicable, but it has low ecological validity and is culturally biased - Takahashi found Japanese infants responded differently (32% resistant, procedure stopped for 90% at episode 7), questioning its use outside Western samples.
Evaluate Harlow's research into attachment. (8 marks)
Answer: Harlow (1958) raised 16 rhesus monkeys with a wire milk mother and a soft cloth mother. Findings: monkeys spent most time with the cloth mother (contact comfort over food), ran to it when frightened, and later showed abnormal social/sexual behaviour and were abusive or indifferent parents; a 90-day critical period applied. Strengths: supports contact comfort and the importance of early attachment to later development (internal working model), refuting cupboard-love learning theory; monkeys are close relatives of humans, so findings inform human development; practical application to orphanage care. Limitations: severe lasting harm inflicted on monkeys breaches modern BPS ethics guidelines; generalisability is limited because monkey and human attachment differ; artificial surrogates do not resemble real caregiving. Conclusion: influential and still cited, but ethically unacceptable today and best interpreted alongside human evidence.
Explain the internal working model and its influence on later relationships. (6 marks)
Answer: The internal working model (Bowlby) is a mental representation of the first attachment relationship that acts as a template for all later relationships. It influences parenting (Bailey et al. 2007: mothers' attachment style predicted how they treated their own infants), peer relationships and romantic relationships (Hazan and Shaver 1987: the love quiz found secure adults had trusting, lasting relationships, while avoidant adults feared intimacy and resistant adults had volatile relationships). The continuity hypothesis predicts early secure attachment leads to secure later relationships. Evaluation: evidence is correlational (a third variable such as temperament may drive both), retrospective (love quiz self-report), and the model cannot explain why some insecurely attached children become secure adults.
Evaluate Romanian orphan research into institutionalisation. (8 marks)
Answer: Rutter et al.'s English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) study followed 165 Romanian orphans adopted into UK families against 52 UK adoptees. Findings: orphans adopted before 6 months showed near-normal development; those adopted later showed disinhibited attachment (indiscriminate friendliness), intellectual underfunctioning and delayed physical growth; Zeanah et al. (2009) found institutionalised children showed more disorganised attachments. Strengths: a natural experiment with a matched control group and longitudinal follow-up (validity for measuring institutional effects); practical application to adoption policy (priority for early adoption) and orphanage care. Limitations: confounding variables - malnutrition, disease and neglect cannot be fully separated from emotional deprivation; adopted samples are unusual (often selected for health); late-adopted children improved over time, suggesting resilience. Conclusion: research robustly demonstrates institutionalisation effects but the critical period is better described as sensitive, and effects are only partially reversible.
Outline and evaluate Schaffer's stages of attachment. (8 marks)
Answer: Schaffer (1964) studied 60 working-class Glasgow infants monthly for a year, using mothers' reports of separation and stranger anxiety. Four stages: asocial (0-6 weeks, similar responses to people and objects), indiscriminate attachment (6 weeks-6 months, accepts care from anyone), specific attachment (7 months+, one special attachment with separation and stranger anxiety) and multiple attachments (10-11 months+, secondary attachments form). Strengths: longitudinal design tracks individual development; 75% of infants had formed an attachment with the father by 18 months, supporting multiple attachments. Limitations: mothers' reports risk social desirability and observer bias (infant behaviour is inferred from crying); the timing of stages is culturally biased - in collectivist families (e.g. Tronick's Efe study) multiple attachments form earlier; the sample (1960s Glasgow, working-class) limits generalisability.
Evaluate learning theory as an explanation of attachment. (8 marks)
Answer: Learning theory (Dollard and Miller) claims attachment is learned: classical conditioning pairs the caregiver (neutral stimulus) with food (unconditioned stimulus producing pleasure), making the caregiver a conditioned stimulus; operant conditioning - crying stops discomfort (negative reinforcement) and the caregiver is rewarded by the infant's smile (positive reinforcement); food is the primary reinforcer. Limitations: contradicted by animal studies - Lorenz's goslings imprinted without food and Harlow's monkeys preferred comfort over milk; Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found 39% of primary attachments were not to the feeding person. Strengths: some elements are valid (feeding soothes infants) and the theory is testable and scientific, but it is reductionist - it ignores the infant's active social role and the evolutionary basis of attachment. Conclusion: learning theory explains some caregiver-infant behaviour but cannot explain attachment itself.
amazon.co.uk
