ASSIGNMENT REPORT FORM

Student ID Tutor ID Date Student sent

assignment:18/11

58117156 Name: Megan Gaffney /2010

Date Received by

tutor:
Date Sent to

Oscail:
Overall Mark Obtained:

Module:PSY 3 Group: 1 TMA No:

Summary of Performance*

Performance Components Bands

Excellent Very Good Fair Weak Poor Not

(H1) Good (H2.2) (H3) applicable

(H2.1)

Marks

Marks Marks Marks Marks Marks range:

range: range: range: range: range: below

70-100% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 35-39% 35%

Attention to assignment task
Analysis
Structure
Use of sources
References
Introduction
Conclusion
Spelling/Grammar
Presentation (Style)
* This table facilitates the assessment of your performance in selected components of your assignment, and is

designed to alert you to the general areas of strength and/ or in need of improvement in your work. Please note that

the components are not equal in terms of contribution to your overall mark. Attention to Assignment Task,

Analysis and Structure are the three most important criteria for assessment. Please note that the total mark

indicated is based on an evaluation of your overall performance in the set assignment.

SUMMARY COMMENTS

ADVICE FOR FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS

ANNOTATED FEEDBACK

(Refer to Assignment for the sections relating to the following comments)

1.

2.
To what extent do families determine our psychological make-up?

Introduction

That fact that family systems theory, sibling relationships, and gender development within the

family context, are just some areas of psychological study presupposes that inter-familial relationships

exert substantial influence on our psychological make-up. From a psychological perspective,

quantitatively measuring the effects of family relationships would prove extremely difficult; these

relationships are as unique as corneal patterns. Instead when considering a question as broad as the

above, psychologists tend to pursue focused enquiry of a qualitative nature such as; “do different family

forms, such as a non-traditional nuclear family, negatively impact on the psychology of children?” (Adams

et al. 1979), or, “can a child's sense of attachment security be affected by how romantically attached its

parents are?” (Laurent et al. 2008). It is perhaps more beneficial then not to approach this essay from

the point of view of measurement, but instead to examine the relationship between mother and child as

this seems particularly salient in a discussion of the possible affects on our psychological make-up as we

develop. As Sroufe (2005, p.17) states, “Attachment experiences remain, […] vital in the formation of the

person”. What follows will not be an attempt to resolve the question from a strictly quantitative

perspective but to analyse early attachment theory as developed by John Bowlby and incorporate his

theory into a broader discussion regarding the concepts of continuity and discontinuity.

There is a significant body of research concerning the interrelatedness of marital and parent-child

relationships (Cox & Paley, 2003). As Sroufe (2005, p.17) states:

“It [attachment] is an organizing core in development that is always integrated with later

experience and never lost”.

Bowlby's attachment theory deserves examination as it was largely responsible for generating a profusion

of research in the area of attachment and its long-term psychological affects (Goldberg et al., 1995,

p.45). The psychological community has also explored the continuity and discontinuity views with regard

to how attachment theory is coloured by these concepts. This may be due to the fact that attachment

theory attempts to explain how our emotional and social behaviour originates (Lewis et al., 2000 p.707).

The attachment theories of Frued, Erikson and Bowlby were influential within psychology but it was the

work of Bowlby that became predominant within psychological circles on the subject. Bowlby spent a

major part of his professional life investigating attachment and his work caused a paradigm shift with

regard to the possible negative psychological effects of disruption to the mother-child relationship (Marris

et al., 1991). Ainsworth was also very active and influential within attachment theory research. It was
she (1979) who developed the “Strange Situation observational measure of infant attachment”. This

rendered Bowlby's theory of attachment more sensitive to empirical validation while also contributing to a

deeper understanding of individual differences in attachment relations. It also introduced the concept of

the caregiver as a secure base (Marris et al., 1991 p.145). There are weaknesses in attachment theory,

which will be examined later, but there is no doubt that it has contributed greatly to our understanding of

the developing child, and the effect of the family on psychological development (Santrock, 2007 p.359).

In light of the work of the researchers mentioned here, it might be ascertained that the psychological

make-up of the individual is more strongly affected by family than had been previously thought.

Developmental constructionism holds that as individuals grow they acquire modes of

relating to other people (Santrock, 2007 p.459). If the idea of development and growth is central

to a constructivist view then it must recognise the consequences of previous experiences. An

important element of the debate regarding the effect of the family on our psychological make-up

involves the views of continuity and discontinuity, but how do these concepts relate to attachment

theory?

Once Bitten, Forever Shy?

The continuity view holds that our early relationships with our primary care givers influence

the way we construct relationships with others throughout our lives (Ainsworth, 1979, Bowlby,

1989).

“Thus, we reached the conclusion that loss of mother-figure […] is capable of generating

responses and processes that are of great interest to psychopathology. Not only so, but

these responses and processes, we concluded, are the very same as are known to be active

in older individuals who are still disturbed by separations that they suffered in early life”

(Bolwby, 1969 p.xxix).

There is empirically based evidence to support this view. A longitudinal study conducted by Alan

Sroufe (2005) suggests that the influence of these early relationships exerts effects up to 15 years

after initial assessments of infants. This study linked social competence within their peer group to

attachment history and early care. It suggested that the continuity view is strongly supported in

terms of the nature and quality of early attachment, although Sroufe acknowledges certain

contradictions when applying the definition of continuity:

“...we have pointed out that development will always involve drawing on prior adaptation,

and thus entail continuity, and yet continuity, because of development, always entails

change” (Sroufe, 2005 p.352).

But this change mentioned by Sroufe is not a total or fundamental difference in a child's behaviour

but rather a variance in patterns of behaviour as the child progresses through certain

developmental stages. So a continuity view can be maintained when the changes in these patterns

in behaviour are contextualised within a framework of differing behavioural expectations due to age

and environment (Sroufe, 2005 p.350).

Hamilton (2000) examined individuals as infants, 13 year olds and 18 year olds. There

were two aims to the investigation, to establish the relationship and factors that influenced change

between, 1) early and later attachment classification, and, 2) the early and later attachment

representation of the participants. Hamilton (2000) suggests that in the case of insecure infants,

they are more likely to carry forward an insecure classification of attachment into adolescence,

although the endurance of this condition could be influenced by environmental factors (p.693). This

would concur with Sroufe, but Hamilton also speaks to Bowlby's proposal that infants form internal

working models of themselves and their social world. Arguably Hamilton could appear to advocate

a more discontinuous view as she mentions Bowlby's assertion that the older a person becomes,

the less likely it is for change to occur within the internal working model (Hamilton, 2000 p.690).

This may also illustrate that Bowlby himself acknowledged the possibility of a component of

discontinuity in the ageing person and this will be examined later.

A discontinuous view holds that as people grow, they develop different types of

relationships, and that these relationships are structurally different (Santrock, 2007 p.459).

Discontinuity emphasises the ability of the developing child to change and reshape their behaviour

to suit new situations and relationships. The discontinuous view does not completely disregard

earlier experiences but, in terms of attachment experience, highlights the ability of the child or

adult to change how they relate to others in spite of the quality or nature of those early

experiences of attachment. For instance, maladjustment in adolescents was not shown to be

predicted by their attachment status at 1 year old (Lewis et al., p.200). This contradicts Bowlby's

(1973) assertion that psychopathology in later life could be linked, in a continuous developmental

manner, to insecure attachment in early family experiences. Furthermore, there is a lack of

predictable correlation between attachment behaviour at the age of one and attachment behaviour

in later childhood (Belsky et al., 1996; Thompson & Lamb, 1983a, 1983b). Lewis et al. (2000)

found a lack of continuity between attachment behaviour in 1 year old children and their

representations in adolescence, but did find that,

“Although no relation was found between recollections at 13 years and attachment at 1 year,

recollections were related to attachment representations at 18 years” (Lewis, 2000 p.715).

This again shows the effect of the age variable when attempting to analyse the question of

continuity and discontinuity. A recurring result from research relating to attachment and continuity

and discontinuity is that individuals who are classified as insecurely attached, and experience major

traumas or negative life events, are more likely to show discontinuity in their attachment

representation (Waters, 1995). Conversely, those who show more resilience to those traumatic

events are more likely to have experienced secure attachment as infants (Sroufe, 1990). This

could be taken to indicate that secure attachment, rooted in a positive infant experience within the

family, has a positive effect on an individual’s psychological development.

Conclusion

There is evidence supporting that a level of continuity does exist when referring to Bowlby's

attachment theory since the nature of the mother-infant relationship was associated to their attachment

representations in adolescence (Hamilton, 2000). Furthermore, a change in attachment classification

could be caused by environmental factors and depend on whether or not the adolescents were secure or

insecure as infants (Lewis et al., 2000). These findings appear to allude to a continuous view of

development while incorporating elemental mechanisms of change but not affecting in a fundamental way

the process by which the person deals with their relationships. Bowlby's asserts that we can travel along

“developmental pathways” (Bowlby, 1973). While the essence of attachment theory stresses the enduring

legacy of our early attachment, Bowlby does acknowledge some interplay of environment and new

experiences,

‘‘The [pathway] chosen, it is held, turns at each and every stage of the journey on an

interaction between the organism as it has developed up to that moment and the

environment in which it then finds itself’’ (Bowlby, 1973, p. 364).

While this view of development may have been dynamic to a certain extent (Sroufe, 2005), subsequent

critiques of his theory highlighted the fact that there may have been deeper levels of interplay between

attachment deprivation, environment and situational consequences on the subjects of his original

observations then he acknowledged (Hennessy & Morgan, 2010, p. 5-3).

Rutter (1972) argues that many children who suffer serious deprivation of the maternal bond are

not damaged in the long term. Rutter also contests the importance attached to the bond between the

mother and child, and Bowlby’s emphasis on the differentiation of this bond from those formed with other

caregivers. These challenges to Bowlby's theory do serve to highlight one particular shortcoming;

according to the premise of attachment theory, children who experience deprivation of this bond are by

definition psychologically disadvantaged and would be likely to suffer some form of psychopathology.
This, as Rutter (1972) has shown, is not always the case. In fact as recent developments in the areas of

psychology and psychiatry have shown, children from severely disrupted backgrounds can develop high

levels of resilience in order to cope with the psychological damage caused by the disruption (Werner &

Smith, 2001). Another variable of development given little attention by Bowlby are the cognitive abilities

of children. Childhood I.Q. Has been shown to be positively correlated with the ability of the child to cope

with adverse conditions during the early years (Luthar, 2003 p.131) yet Bowlby did not seem to observe

this correlation. In both cases, though the outcome for the child is more positive, there is still a direct

influence of the family on the psychology of the individual. In the first instance, the child develops

resilience due to its family circumstances. In the second instance, the child’s I.Q. can be partially

attributed to the genetics of its parents. Thus, even when the continuous and discontinuous views of

attachment theory are critiqued from these perspectives, the influence of the family is still evident.

The extent to which families determine our psychological make-up is, as previously mentioned,

immeasurable. We can ascertain however that attachment theory is one of many psychological

approaches that offers a perspective from which to view the origins of our social relationships and

psychological development. Additionally, a strict reading of continuity or discontinuity seems less

informative or likely than a view that these processes are not mutually exclusive but rather

complementary in their influence and staidness. What has become apparent during the course of this

discussion is despite the involvement of many other factors including evolutionary, genetic,

environmental, individual differences and developmental functions in our psychological make-up, the

family can still exert a substantial influence – both positive and negative.
References

Adams, G.R., Bueche, N., Marotz-Baden, R., Munroe, B., Munroe, G. (1979) Family form or Family

Process? Reconsidering the Deficit Family Model Approach. The Family Coordinator p. 5-14 Vol.

28, No. 1.

Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1979) Infant Mother Attachment. American Psychologist p. 932-937 Vol. 34

Belsky, J., Spritz, B., Crnic, K. (1996) Infant attachment security and affective-cognitive information

processing at age 3. Psychological Science, p.111-114 Vol. 7.

Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and Loss (Vol. 1) Attachment. Hogarth Press:London.

Bowlby, J. (1973) Attachment and loss (Vol. 2) Separation. Basic Books:New York.

Cox, M.J., Paley B. (2003) Understanding Families as Systems. Current Directions in Psychological

Science p. 193-196 Vol. 12, No. 5.

Goldberg, S., Muir, R., Kerr, K. (1995) Attachment Theory: Social, Developmental, and Clinical

Perspectives. The Analytic Press:New York.

Hamilton, C. (2000) Continuity and Discontinuity of Attachment from Infancy Through Adolescence Child

Development, p. 690-694 Vol. 71, No. 3.

Hennessy, E., Morgan, M. (2010) Developmental and Educational Psychology. In K. MacKeogh (Ed.),

Oscail Course Notes Psychology 3. Oscail:Dublin.

Laurent, H., Kim, H., Capaldi, D. (2008) Prospective Effects of Interparental Conflict on Child Attachment

Security and the Moderating Role of Parents' Romantic Attachment. Journal of Family Psychology,

p. 377-388 Vol. 22 No. 3.

Lewis, M., Feiring, C., Rosenthal, S. (2000). Attachment over Time Child Development, p. 707-720 Vol.

71, No. 3.

Luthar, S. (2003) Resilience and vulnerability: adaptation in the context of childhood adversities

Cambridge University Press:Cambridge.

Marris, P., Murray-Parks, C., Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1991). Attachment Across the Life Cycle.

Routledge:London.

Rutter, M. (1972) Deprivation Reassessed. Penguin:Middlesex.

Santrock, J.W. (2007) Child Development. McGraw Hill:New York.

Sroufe, L.A., Egeland, B., & Kreutzer, T. (1990). The Fate of Early Experience following Developmental

Change: Longitudinal approaches to individual adaptation in childhood. Child Development,

p.1363-1373. Vol. 61.

Sroufe, L.A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E., Collins, W A. (2005). The Place of Early Attachment in

Developmental Context. In K.E. Grossman, K. Grossman, E. Waters (Eds.), The power of

 longitudinal attachment research: From infancy and childhood to adulthood. Guildford Press:New

York.

Thompson, R. A., Lamb, M. E. (1983a). Individual differences in dimensions of socio-emotional

development in infancy. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and

experience: Vol. 2. Emotions in early development. Academic Press:New York.

Thompson, R. A., Lamb, M. E. (1983b). Security and Attachment and Stranger Sociability in Infancy.

Developmental Psychology. p. 184-191 Vol. 19.

Waters, E., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., Merrick, S., & Albersheim, L. (1995). From the strange situation to

the adult attachment interview: A 20-year longitudinal study of attachment security in infancy

and early adulthood. Poster Session presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research

in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.

Werner, E., Smith, R. (2001) Journeys from childhood to midlife: risk, resilience, and recovery. Cornell

University Press:New York.