Brief Lecture Notes for Unit 6
A very important concept in child development is that of infant attachment. Attachment represents a bond between the infant and one or more specific persons (generally adult caregivers, and most usually, of course, the parents, especially the mother). It is evidenced by various infant behaviors:
1. The infant actively seeks out certain specific people and treats them as a source of security and comfort.
2. S/he exhibits distress responses in the absence of those people (separation anxiety).
3. S/he exhibits distress responses in the presence of other, unfamiliar adults (stranger anxiety).
Why is attachment so important? Because it is believed by many to prefigure all later relationship patterns, forming a sort of "template" or "default mode" -- a lens through which any relationship will be viewed. Since these relationship patterns are developed when the child is still (at least partly) preverbal, they predate language systems associated with cognition and are thus very resistant to change... or so the argument runs. If you note the influence of the psychodynamic school of thought in this line of argument, you're correct!
Attachment emerges in a consistent series of steps:
1. At birth, the infant is attracted to human beings in general (shows undifferentiated social responsiveness -- a general preference for human contact versus isolation) and prefers human beings to inanimate objects. In addition, mother-infant (or, more generally, adult-infant) bonding may be critical -- within the first 3 days of life -- in helping to develop or cement this motivational pattern, and this may represent a critical period (remember what those are?) for the development of normal social responsiveness. (Note the implications for prematurely born infants who, for medical reasons, must be physically isolated. As a former preemie, I blame any lack of social skills in my life on this fact, but unfortunately can find no one against whom to file a lawsuit, so will have to keep working for a living.)
2. Beginning in the first few weeks of life and increasing throughout the next several months, the infant develops an increasing perceptual ability to recognize the difference between familiar and unfamiliar persons. (See the previous unit for material on sensation and perception.) Without this purely cognitive (or at least sensory) capability, the emotional bond represented by specific attachment could not occur.
3. These two behavior patterns (one affective or motivational, one cognitive or perceptual), initially separate, begin to merge or coalesce at about 6 to 8 months, and increasingly so throughout the following 12 to 18 months, to yield specific attachment as defined above. The infant now seeks contact with specific individuals and protests or experiences anxiety (to varying degrees as noted below) when they depart. Note that for this to take place, the infant must be mentally ready to comprehend that people still exist even when they are not visible or physically present (so-called object permanence; more about this later in the course).
4. As children mature, attachment behavior as narrowly defined gradually wanes, as evidenced by increasing ability to tolerate physical separation from attachment figures and the development of alternative sources of security. Partly this is because children become more able to understand verbal reassurances, to appreciate the temporary nature of separations, and so forth. Thus attachment evolves into more mature forms of bonding and relating, but the emotional core forged during the attachment phase (or so the theory goes) remains, and shapes relational and affective patterns throughout the lifespan. (On evidence for or against that view, more later.)
The Ainsworth strange situation test is used to monitor attachment and (more importantly) to classify attachment patterns into four distinct types (A, B, C, D). Note that, technically, attachment is not an infant personality trait as such; it is a quality of the relationship between the infant and a specific person (e.g., the mother). Thus, a given infant might have (say) a type A attachment to one person, a type B attachment to another. In most cases, however, one particular pattern applies to all or most of a given infant's relationships (with any attachment figure), so it's common to generalize and speak of a "type A baby", since the notion is that one of these four patterns eventually comes to characterize a person's "default mode" of relating to anyone.
In the Ainsworth scenario, mother and baby are brought to a research facility which includes a large playroom, a waiting area, and an observation area (where the researcher or her/his assistants can monitor subjects' behavior through a one-way mirror). Seven steps, each approximately 3 minutes in length (but lengthened or shortened as necessary to avoid unnecessary emotional trauma to the infant), follow one another in succession. While term "baby" is used below, the average age of subjects in attachment research is typically from 12 to 24 months.
1. Mother and baby spend 3+ minutes accommodating to the playroom. Mother is told to encourage (but not force) the child to explore the roomful of toys and to have fun.
2. A stranger (unfamiliar adult -- research assistant) enters and begins a 3- minute interaction with the baby, while (towards the end of this segment) the mother unobtrusively leaves.
3. The stranger remains alone with the baby and attempts to engage it in play for 3- minutes.
4. The mother returns, the stranger leaves; the mother attempts to comfort the baby for 3+ minutes. At the end of this segment, she openly leaves (waving "bye bye" to the baby).
5. The baby is left alone in the playroom (carefully observed by the researcher through the one-way mirror, of course) for 3- minutes.
6. The stranger re-enters and, for 3- minutes, tries to engage the baby in play.
7. As the stranger exits, the mother re-enters and again re-establishes contact with, and attempts to comfort, the baby for 3+ minutes.
Note the inherent logic in this scenario. There are pre-separation, separation, and post-separation episodes. Specifically, stages 2, 3, and 6 assess stranger anxiety while stages 3, 5, and 6 assess separation anxiety.
Literally thousands of variations on the Ainsworth theme dot the literature. Various characteristics of the stranger (age, gender, ethnicity, physical attractiveness, physical similarity to the mother, type of behavioral interaction with the mother in stage 2, and so forth) have been studied. Different adult caregivers (mother, father, grandparent, day care provider) can play the role attributed to the mother above, and so forth. However, the original purpose of the Ainsworth model was to identify, delineate, and study distinct patterns in attachment behavior (the A, B, C, D styles alluded to above). These can be outlined as follows.
The type A or avoidant infant shows the following characteristics. About 20% of infants overall show this pattern.
1. S/he shows little interest in the playroom at the start of the experiment: seems listless, apathetic, uninvolved, bored, or "too cool" to show interest. S/he may eventually pick up and start playing with a toy, but in a seemingly emotionally distant way. Ainsworth interpreted this behavior as evidence that the child has already learned "not to care too much" and not to trust situations (and people) that seem positive... to stay aloof. In adults this might translate into cynicism, skepticism, a "jaded and faded" outlook, and a tendency to avoid trusting others -- "I've gotta look out for ol' number one" rather than relying on others to care for me.
2. S/he shows little or no distress when mom leaves (since mom is not a primary source of security) and behaves in generally the same way as in the pre-separation phase. It seems almost a matter of indifference whether mom is present or absent.
3. S/he avoids (or shows no particular interest in re-engaging with) mom when she re-enters the room. "So you're back? Big deal. I hardly even noticed you were gone. Who cares? I can take care of myself anyway."
The type B or securely attached infant shows the following characteristics. About 60% of infants overall show this pattern. (This is the "desirable" pattern; presumably, all mothers want their children to grow up to be type B. Later, we'll see why.)
1. S/he actively and eagerly explores the roomful of toys at the start of the experiment. S/he shows no need to stick close to mom, though may look at her, smile, wave, show a toy from across the room. There is evidence of an emotional bond and involvement with mom, but not a clingy "overinvolvement". Ainsworth's interpretation was that because the child is secure in its attachment to the mother, it can (paradoxically) risk independent action... see later in the course for Erikson's theory of psychosocial development, which says the same thing in different language.
2. S/he is moderately but not excessively upset when mom leaves; clearly, she likes mom and would prefer having her around, but has a generally sunny, optimistic, "well, let's make the best of it, I'm sure mom will be back" approach.
3. S/he enthusiastically seeks a renewed interaction with mom when she returns, and is readily soothed and consoled about mom's absence. "Hiya, mom! Knew you'd be back -- you've never let me down yet! Great to see ya! Guess what I did while you were away?")
The type C or ambivalent infant shows the following characteristics. About 15% of infants overall show this pattern. (I was probably a type C baby, but I turned out all right... I blame it on having to spend those first six weeks in an isolette due to having been born prematurely. Moral: there's hope for those of us who weren't type B babies too, so don't give up.)
1. At the start of the experiment, s/he clearly wants to explore the roomful of toys, but is apprehensive (what if s/he took that risk and then got in over her head because mom left?) S/he explores the room tentatively, but with evident concern that mom might leave, often looking back over her/his shoulder or exhibiting "clinging" behavior. (See point 3 below for Ainsworth's interpretation, which is easier to understand when presented at that point.)
2. These babies show intense distress during the separation episode and are quite inconsolable (the stranger is of no help and is likely seen as a threat). Their worst fears have definitely come true; the bottom has dropped out of their world!
3. When mom returns, there is clear evidence of an internal emotional conflict (the ambivalence): on the one hand, seeing mom is a huge relief since the child needs her (too much?), but on the other hand, the child is mad or upset at mom's "betrayal", so ends up caught between need and resentment, love and anger... or so Ainsworth interprets their behavior. "You left me right when I needed you most! I can't live without you, and I'm mad about that. What if you betray me again? Life is scary and I'm feeling insecure. I need your comfort, but the more I need you, the bigger the risk you'll let me down."
The type D or disorganized infant shows the following characteristics. This is a statistical rarity (fewer than 5% of infants overall show this pattern); in Ainsworth's original research, only the A, B, and C patterns were observed, with the much rarer D pattern only emerging later.
1. At the start of the experiment the infant acts much like a type A baby: uninvolved, little active play.
2. During the separation episodes the infant acts much like a type C baby: highly distressed, overwrought, inconsolable.
3. But when mom returns, the baby exhibits what almost looks like subclinically autistic behavior: stereotypic, dazed, "frozen", out of touch behavior that may (?) be indicative of some underlying (individual or family-system) pathology. "I cope with your absence by turning into my own little world. Live long and prosper, mom."
Correlationally -- and it's important to emphasize that because these are correlational relationships only, they don't always hold true -- the caregivers (mothers) of these infants tend to have different characteristics, too. That doesn't mean we're blaming mothers (or parents in general) for "causing" a child's attachment pattern; as with any relationship, there is a "feedback loop" of mutually interlocking causes and effects (mom influences baby, but baby influences mom, too).
1. Mothers of type A infants tend to be low in both warmth and responsiveness. They seem rather aloof and uncaring about the infant, and in extreme cases may even see her/him as a "bother". (Does this cause the baby's aloofness, or is the mother eventually giving up on having a close bond with the baby because s/he is so aloof?)
2. Mothers of type B infants tend to be high in both warmth and responsiveness. They obviously like the child and are skilled at anticipating and responding to her/his needs. (Does this cause the baby's sunny optimism, or do the mothers enjoy the baby because s/he is so easy to like and to "read"?)
3. Mothers of type C infants tend to be high in warmth, but low in responsiveness. They care about their child and obviously want to connect with her/him, but appear awkward at it... not knowing how to "read" what the child wants and often guessing wrong. (Thus, one might argue, the baby bonds to mom because of her warmth, but feels insecure because mom is an inconsistent source of needed rewards. Or, is mom's ineptness due to the fact that the baby is "hard to figure out" from the start?)
Little research exists on the characteristics of mothers of type D babies, since there are so few of them. Probably this is a diverse group: the majority of type D babies probably have some pre-existing pathology, but in a minority of cases, maternal or familial pathology may be implicated.
Attachment patterns are remarkably stable (high test-retest reliability) once formed. Of children tested at age 1 and again (using a somewhat different testing protocol, of course) at age 6, from 60% to 75% of them were found to be in the same attachment category at both times. Test-retest reliability is somewhat higher for babies who tested as type B babies at the earlier age, suggesting that resilience has long-lasting positive effects. However (viewing that result from the other angle), the good news is that being a non-B baby at age 1 isn't exactly the kiss of death; there's almost a 50:50 chance that a child will "overcome" that deficit by school age.
Much research indicates (though there are detractors) that attachment has long-term implications for later childhood, adolescent, and even adult personality, behavior, and relational patterns. Children who test as type B at age 1-2 tend to outperform other children 5, 10, or more years later on a wide range of outcome variables including mental curiosity, task persistence, self-esteem, social development, empathy, positive affect (optimism), and social initiative taking. Again, this doesn't mean that "attachment is destiny". But it does imply that parents (and other adult caregivers) have a very significant responsibility during the first 2-3 years of life, since basic personality patterns may be formed in the child which can have lifelong implications. (Note the connection to the concept of critical periods and to the psychodynamic view in general, as discussed earlier in the course.)
In one well known study, children were tested at age 1 using the Ainsworth paradigm, then as kindergarteners were interviewed using a puppet interview method. Those who were type B four years previously had a realistic sense of self worth: they liked themselves, but could openly admit flaws and imperfections. Type A's tended to present an unrealistically positive ("I'm perfect") view of themselves to the interviewer. Type C's often showed deficits in self-esteem (exaggerated or overestimated their faults). See later in the course for Erikson's treatment of this same idea.
Can one attachment figure substitute for another? (This has implications for the question of day care versus stay-at-home moms.) Converging evidence generally suggests that a child who has any secure attachment relationship (to any adult) shows better social-emotional competence than a child who has none, even if the secure attachment is not to the mother. However, (1) the more secure attachment relationships (including to the mother) the child has, the better; (2) there is a slight advantage for children whose only secure attachment relationship is to the mother (vs. to another adult).