Specification: Stages of attachment identified by Schaffer. Multiple attachments and the role of the father. 

Key Study: Schaffer and Emerson (1964)

Aim: To examine the formation of early attachments.

Method: Their sample consisted of 60 babies (31 male, 29 female) from working class families in Glasgow aged between 5–23 weeks at the start of the investigation. The researchers visited the babies in their homes, every month for the first 12 months and then once again at 18 months. The researchers interviewed the mothers and observed the children in relation to separation and stranger anxiety in a range of everyday activities.

Results: The results provided some support for the different stages of developing an attachment. At around 25–32 weeks, 50% of the children showed separation anxiety towards their mothers, expected of the discriminate attachment stage. Furthermore, by 40 weeks, 80% of the children had a specific (discriminate) attachment and 30% had started to form multiple attachments.  

Conclusion: The results provide some support for Schaffer’s stages of attachment and suggest that attachment develops through a series of stages across the first year of life. 

Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson (1964)

One strength of Shaffer and Emerson’s research is that it has high external validity. Shaffer and Emerson conducted the observations in each child’s own home which means that the children and parents were more likely to act naturally. Therefore, the study has good external validity as the results are likely to apply to other children from a similar demographic in their own homes.

A criticism of Schaffer’s research is that it lacks population validity.  The sample consisted of only 60 working class mothers and babies from Glasgow, who may form very different attachments with their infants when compared with wealthier families from other countries. Therefore, we are unable to generalise the results of this study to mothers and babies from other countries and backgrounds as their behaviour might not be comparable.

Shaffer and Emerson’s research is also criticised due to the possibility of social desirability bias.  Shaffer and Emerson interviewed the mothers about their children and some of them may not have reported accurate details about their children, to appear like ‘better’ mothers with secure attachments.  This could cause a bias in the data that would reduce the internal validity of the findings since natural behaviour will not have been recorded about the stages of attachment. 

The Role of the Father

While traditionally the role of the father may have been limited, as fathers would go to work to provide resources whilst the mothers stayed home and took care of the children, in recent times the role of the father has significantly changed.

However, psychologists disagree over the exact role of the father. Some researchers claim that men are simply not equipped to form an attachment. Such psychologists point to biological evidence which suggests that the hormone oestrogen underlies caring behaviour in women and the lack of oestrogen in men is why they are unable to form a close attachment. Other researchers argue that fathers do not take on a caregiver role and in fact provide a different role: as a playmate. Finally, some researchers argue that fathers can demonstrate sensitive responsiveness and respond to the needs of their children and therefore can form a strong emotional tie or bond.

Evaluation of The Role of the Father

There is research evidence that provides support for the role of the father as a ‘playmate’ rather than primary caregiver. Research by Geiger (1996) found that a fathers’ play interactions were more exciting in comparison to a mothers’. However, the mothers’ play interactions were more affectionate and nurturing. This suggests that the role of the father is in fact as a playmate and not as a sensitive parent who responds to the needs of their children. These results also confirm that the mother takes on a nurturing role.

Research evidence suggests that fathers are not as equipped as mothers to provide a sensitive and nurturing attachment. Hrdy (1999) found that fathers were less able to detect low levels of infant distress, in comparison to mothers. These results appear to support the biological explanation that the lack of oestrogen in men means that fathers are not equipped innately to form close attachments with their children. This suggests that the role of the father is, to some extent, biologically determined and that a father’s role is restricted because of their makeup. This provides further evidence that fathers are not able to provide a sensitive and nurturing type of attachment, as they are unable to detect stress in their children. 

Research suggests that fathers can form secure attachments with their children, if they are in an intimate marriage. Belsky et al. (2009) found that males who reported higher levels of marital intimacy also displayed a secure father–infant attachment, whereas males with lower levels of marital intimacy displayed insecure father–infant attachments. This suggests that males can form secure attachments with their children but the strength of the attachment depends on the father and mother relationship.