Development: Attachment Theory

What you'll learn

This revision guide covers attachment theory as tested in the Edexcel GCSE Psychology specification. You will explore the formation of early emotional bonds between infants and caregivers, the different types of attachment identified through research, and the potential long-term consequences of early attachment experiences. These concepts form the foundation of developmental psychology at GCSE level.

Key terms and definitions

Attachment — a strong, reciprocal emotional bond between an infant and caregiver that endures over time and leads to proximity-seeking behaviour and distress on separation.

Imprinting — an innate biological process in which a young animal forms an attachment to the first moving object it sees during a critical period shortly after birth.

Secure attachment — a healthy attachment type characterised by distress at caregiver separation, happiness at reunion, and the use of the caregiver as a safe base for exploration.

Insecure-avoidant attachment — an attachment type where the infant shows indifference to the caregiver's presence, little distress at separation, and avoidance at reunion.

Insecure-resistant attachment — an attachment type characterised by intense distress at separation, resistance to comfort at reunion, and reluctance to explore even when the caregiver is present.

The Strange Situation — a controlled observation procedure developed by Mary Ainsworth to assess the quality of attachment between infants and caregivers.

Internal working model — a mental representation of relationships formed in infancy that influences expectations and behaviour in future relationships throughout life.

Separation anxiety — the distress displayed by an infant when separated from their primary attachment figure.

Core concepts

The origins of attachment theory: Lorenz and Bowlby

Konrad Lorenz's research on imprinting in goslings (1935) demonstrated that attachment could have a biological basis. Goslings followed the first moving object they saw after hatching, usually their mother, during a critical period. When Lorenz ensured he was the first moving object, the goslings imprinted on him and followed him everywhere. This research suggested attachment might be innate rather than learned through feeding, as behaviourist theories had proposed.

John Bowlby developed attachment theory based on evolutionary principles. He proposed that attachment is an innate system that evolved to ensure infant survival. Key principles include:

• Attachment provides protection from predators and danger
• Infants are born with social releasers (crying, smiling, cooing) that trigger caregiving responses
• There is a critical period (approximately 0-2.5 years) for attachment formation
• Infants form a primary attachment to one caregiver (monotropy)
• Early attachment experiences form an internal working model that shapes future relationships

Bowlby argued that attachment serves an evolutionary function. Infants who stayed close to caregivers were more likely to survive to reproductive age, passing on genes that promoted attachment behaviour.

Ainsworth's Strange Situation

Mary Ainsworth developed The Strange Situation to assess attachment quality in controlled laboratory conditions. This procedure involves eight episodes lasting approximately three minutes each:

1. Mother and infant enter an unfamiliar room
2. Infant explores while mother sits quietly
3. Stranger enters and talks to mother
4. Mother leaves; stranger remains with infant
5. Mother returns; stranger leaves
6. Mother leaves; infant is alone
7. Stranger returns
8. Mother returns; stranger leaves

Researchers observe four key behaviours:

• Separation anxiety (distress when caregiver leaves)
• Stranger anxiety (response to unfamiliar adult)
• Reunion behaviour (response when caregiver returns)
• Exploration behaviour (willingness to explore the environment)

Types of attachment

Ainsworth identified three main attachment types, with a fourth added later by Main and Solomon:

Secure attachment (Type B) — approximately 60-70% of British infants

• Moderate separation anxiety
• Easy to soothe at reunion
• Moderate stranger anxiety
• Use caregiver as a safe base for exploration
• Associated with sensitive, responsive caregiving

Insecure-avoidant attachment (Type A) — approximately 20-25% of British infants

• Low separation anxiety
• Little response at reunion; may avoid caregiver
• Low stranger anxiety
• Independent exploration
• Associated with rejecting, unresponsive caregiving

Insecure-resistant attachment (Type C) — approximately 3-5% of British infants

• High separation anxiety
• Difficult to comfort at reunion; may show anger or passive resistance
• High stranger anxiety
• Little exploration even with caregiver present
• Associated with inconsistent caregiving

Disorganised attachment (Type D) — approximately 5-10% of infants

• No consistent pattern of behaviour
• May show contradictory behaviours (approach then freeze)
• Often associated with abuse or trauma

Cultural variations in attachment

Research has identified cultural differences in attachment type distribution. Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of Strange Situation studies across eight countries:

• Secure attachment was the most common type in all cultures studied
• Germany showed higher rates of insecure-avoidant attachment (35%)
• Japan and Israel showed higher rates of insecure-resistant attachment (up to 27%)

These variations may reflect:

• Different childrearing practices (e.g., collectivist vs individualist cultures)
• Interpretation of behaviours (independence valued differently across cultures)
• The Strange Situation may be more or less stressful depending on cultural norms

Evaluation point: The Strange Situation was developed in America and may be culturally biased. Japanese infants rarely experience separation from mothers, making the procedure extremely stressful and potentially explaining higher resistant attachment rates.

Factors affecting attachment

Several factors influence attachment quality:

Caregiver sensitivity — Ainsworth identified that caregivers who respond quickly and appropriately to infant signals tend to have securely attached infants. Insensitive or rejecting responses are associated with insecure attachment.

Infant temperament — Kagan argued that innate temperamental differences affect attachment classification. Calm, easy infants may be more likely to form secure attachments, while anxious infants may show resistant patterns regardless of caregiving quality.

Life circumstances — Poverty, parental mental illness, domestic violence, and substance abuse can all interfere with sensitive caregiving and attachment formation.

Multiple attachments — While Bowlby emphasised monotropy (one primary attachment), Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that infants form multiple attachments. By 18 months, most infants had multiple attachments to fathers, grandparents, and siblings, though one was usually primary.

Long-term effects of attachment

The internal working model formed in infancy is thought to influence later development:

Relationships — Securely attached children tend to form better peer relationships, showing more empathy and cooperation. Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that adult romantic relationship styles correlated with reported childhood attachment types.

Mental health — Insecure attachment is associated with higher rates of anxiety, depression, and behavioural problems. Disorganised attachment shows the strongest link to psychopathology.

Parenting — Attachment patterns can transmit across generations. Securely attached individuals tend to provide more sensitive parenting to their own children.

Evaluation of long-term effects:

Strengths:

• Longitudinal studies (e.g., Minnesota Study) provide evidence for continuity
• Practical applications in parenting programmes and interventions

Limitations:

• Attachment is not deterministic; positive experiences can modify working models (plasticity)
• Other factors (genetics, later experiences, socioeconomic status) also influence development
• Research often relies on correlations, not proving causation

Worked examples

Example 1: Short-answer question (3 marks)

Question: Outline what is meant by 'secure attachment'.

Model answer: Secure attachment is a healthy emotional bond between an infant and caregiver (1 mark). It is characterised by the infant showing moderate distress when separated from the caregiver and being easily comforted at reunion (1 mark). Securely attached infants use their caregiver as a safe base for exploration (1 mark).

Examiner guidance: Each distinct point about secure attachment gains a mark. Include definition, key behaviours, and function.

Example 2: Describe and evaluate question (9 marks)

Question: Describe and evaluate Ainsworth's Strange Situation. [9 marks]

Model answer structure:

Description (4-5 marks): The Strange Situation is a controlled observation procedure used to assess attachment quality in infants aged 12-18 months (1 mark). It involves eight episodes in an unfamiliar room, including separations from and reunions with the mother, and introduction of a stranger (1 mark). Researchers observe four key behaviours: separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, reunion behaviour, and exploration (1 mark). Based on these behaviours, infants are classified into attachment types including secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant (1 mark). For example, secure infants show moderate separation anxiety but are easily comforted at reunion (1 mark).

Evaluation (4-5 marks): One strength is high reliability. The procedure is standardised, meaning it can be replicated. Research shows consistent results across studies, suggesting the classifications are reliable (2 marks). However, a limitation is cultural bias. The Strange Situation was developed in America and may not be valid in all cultures. For example, the separation episode may be unusually stressful for Japanese infants who rarely experience separation, potentially explaining higher rates of resistant attachment in Japan (2 marks). Another limitation is that it may measure temperament rather than attachment. Kagan argued that innate personality differences could explain the behaviours observed, not just the quality of the relationship (2 marks).

Examiner guidance: Allocate roughly equal marks to description and evaluation. Use detailed elaboration and examples for higher marks.

Example 3: Application question (4 marks)

Question: Marcus is 14 months old. When his mother leaves the room, he becomes very distressed and cries intensely. When she returns, he rushes to her but then pushes her away when she tries to comfort him. He rarely explores the toys in the room.

Using your knowledge of attachment types, explain Marcus's behaviour.

Model answer: Marcus is showing signs of insecure-resistant attachment (1 mark). The intense distress when his mother leaves indicates high separation anxiety (1 mark). His contradictory behaviour at reunion—seeking comfort but then resisting it—is characteristic of resistant attachment (1 mark). His reluctance to explore even when his mother is present also supports this classification, as resistant infants are too anxious to use their caregiver as a safe base (1 mark).

Examiner guidance: Identify the attachment type clearly, then link specific behaviours from the scenario to characteristics of that type.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

• Confusing attachment types: Students often mix up insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant. Remember: avoidant infants avoid the caregiver and show independence; resistant infants cling but resist comfort.

• Assuming attachment determines destiny: Don't overstate long-term effects. Always acknowledge that attachment is one influence among many, and that internal working models can change (plasticity).

• Ignoring evaluation requirements: In 'describe and evaluate' questions, failing to provide balanced evaluation loses marks. Always include both strengths and limitations with elaboration.

• Lacking detail in The Strange Situation description: Simply stating "mother leaves and returns" isn't enough. Mention the stranger, specify it involves multiple episodes, and identify the four key behaviours observed.

• Cultural bias in answers: Avoid assuming Western attachment patterns are universal. Acknowledge cultural variations when relevant, particularly in evaluation points.

• Confusing Lorenz's imprinting with human attachment: Imprinting is relevant background, but don't suggest humans imprint in the same way as goslings. Explain the connection but note the differences.

Exam technique for "Development: Attachment Theory"

• Command words matter: 'Outline' requires brief detail (2-3 marks); 'Describe' needs fuller detail with examples (4-6 marks); 'Evaluate' requires strengths and limitations with elaboration (marks vary).

• Application questions require specific links: When given a scenario, explicitly connect details from the scenario to psychological concepts. Don't just describe theory—show how it explains the specific example given.

• Structure extended answers: For 9-mark questions, write a clear description section followed by evaluation. Use separate paragraphs for each evaluation point, including elaboration and/or examples for full marks.

• Use research evidence: Naming researchers (Ainsworth, Bowlby, Lorenz) and studies adds credibility and detail. Brief methodological details or findings strengthen answers.

Quick revision summary

Attachment is an innate emotional bond between infant and caregiver with evolutionary survival value. Ainsworth's Strange Situation assesses attachment through controlled observation, identifying secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant types based on separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, reunion behaviour, and exploration. Attachment quality depends on caregiver sensitivity and infant temperament. Early attachment forms an internal working model influencing future relationships, mental health, and parenting, though outcomes aren't deterministic. Cultural variations exist in attachment type distribution, raising questions about the Strange Situation's universal validity.