Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

AS level Psychology > 3. Attachment > Flashcards

3. Attachment Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Define - Attachment

A

an emotional tie or bond between two people,

usually a primary caregiver and a child.

The relationship is reciprocal (shared),

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Define - Reciprocal

A

shared

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Define - Reciprocity

A

when an infant responds to the actions of another person in a form or turn-taking.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Who described infant interaction as a ‘dance’?

A

Brezelton et al. (1975)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What did Feldman believe about caregiver-infant interation?

A

3 months

Reciprocity increases - infant and caregiver pay increasing attention to each other’s verbal and facial communications.

will lay the strong foundations for attachment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is interactional synchrony?

A

When infants mirror the actions or emotions of another person.

This mirroring can also be referred to as imitation or simply copying the adult’s behaviour.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What was Meltzoff and Moore’s aim?

A

To examine interactional synchrony in infants.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Who studied interactional synchrony in infants?

A

Meltzoff and Moore

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was Meltzoff and Moore’s method?

A
  • Using a controlled observation,
  • adult model displayed one of three facial expressions, or a hand gesture.
  • 1st child had a dummy to prevent a facial response.
  • 2nd the dummy was removed and the child’s expressions were filmed.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What were Meltzoff and Moore’s results?

A

There was a clear association between the infants’ behaviour and that of the adult model.

Later research by Meltzoff and Moore (1983) found the same findings in three-day-old infants.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was Meltzoff and Moore’s conclusion?

A

These findings suggest that interactional synchrony is innate and reduces the strength of any claim that imitative behaviour is learned.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What are the stages of attachment?

A

Stage 1 - Indiscriminate attachment 0-2 months

Stage 2 - Beginnings of attachment 2-6 months

Stage 3 - Discriminant attachment 7-12 months

Stage 4 - Multiple attachments year onwards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Explain the first stage of attachment

A

Stage 1 - Indiscriminate attachment

An infant shows similar responses to objects and people. preference for faces / eyes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Explain the second stage of attachment

A

Stage 2 - Beginning of attachment

  • preference for human company
  • distinguish between different people, but are comforted by anyone
  • not show stranger anxiety yet.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Explain the third stage of attachment

A

Stage 3 - Discriminate attachments

  • preference for one caregiver, displaying separation and stranger anxiety.
  • particular person for security and protection.
  • joy upon reunion
  • comforted by their primary caregiver.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Explain the 4th stage of attachment

A

Stage 4 - Multiple attachments

  • Attachment behaviours displayed to several different people - secondary attachments.
  • month after the primary attachment is formed
  • the number of multiple attachments which develop depends on the social circle to whom the infant is exposed.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Who did a study on the formation of early attachments?

A

Schaffer and Emerson 1964

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What was the aim of Schaffer and Emerson’s study?

A

To examine the formation of early attachments.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What method did Schaffer and Emerson use in their study?

A
  • 60 babies (31 male, 29 female)
  • working class families
  • Glasgow
  • 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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What results did Schaffer and Emerson see?

A

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
  • Furthermore, by 40 weeks, 80% of the children had a discriminant attachment
  • 30% had started to form multiple attachments.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What conclusion did Schaffer and Emerson pull from his study?

A

Schaffer’s stages of attachment

attachment develops through a series of stages across the first year of life.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Why can it be argued that Fathers are Simply not equipped to form an attachment with their children?

A

Biological evidence

The hormone oestrogen underlies caring behaviour in women and the lack of it in men is why they are unable to form a close attachment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What are the three explanations for the role of the father?

A
  • biologically inequipped
  • Not a caregiver role but a ‘playmate’
  • sensitive responsiveness and respond to the needs of their children and therefore can form a strong emotional tie or bond.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What are the pros of doing animal studies ?

A
  • They are biologically similar to humans
  • More ethical than conducting with humans
  • Easier to conduct study over life span as they are breed faster than humans do
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Who did a study on imprinting with non-humans?

A

Lorenz (1935)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What was Lorenz’s aim?

A

To examine the phenomenon of imprinting in non-human animals - first moving object

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What method did Lorenz use for his experiment?

A
  • randomly divided goose eggs into two batches.
  • control - hatched naturally by the mother.
  • second - incubator, with Lorenz making sure he was the first large moving object that the goslings saw after hatching.
  • The following behaviour recorded.
  • Lorenz then marked the goslings so he knew in which condition they were hatched and then placed them under an upside-down box.
  • The box was then removed and their following behaviour of the mother goose and Lorenz was recorded again.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What results did Lorenz pull from his experiment?

A
  • control - followed mother
  • Experimental - followed Lorenz

critical period of 4–25 hours after hatching.

This relationship persisted over time and proved to be irreversible.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What was Lorenz’s critical period?

A

4 - 25 hours after hatching.

This relationship persisted over time and proved to be irreversible.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Who did an experiment on contact comfort?

A

Harlow (1959)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What was Harlow’s aim?

A

extent contact comfort and food influences attachment behaviour in baby monkeys.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What method did Harlow follow?

A
  • two surrogate mothers: one harsh ‘wire mother’ and a second soft ‘towelling mother’.
  • sixteen baby rhesus monkeys
  • four caged conditions:
      1. no comfort/milk and comfort/no milk
      1. no comfort/no milk and comfort/milk
      1. no comfort/ milk
      1. comfort/ milk
  • measure - time spent with each mother and time spent feeding
  • test mother preference in stress - a loud noise and their responses recorded.
  • A larger cage was used in some conditions in order to observe the degree of exploration by the baby rhesus monkeys.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What were Harlow’s results?

A
  • prefer comfort irrespective of food
  • even try to keep contact with towelled to get food
  • only wired - showed signs of stress eg. diarrhoea
  • In loud noise cling tightly to the soft ‘towelling mother’
  • In larger caged conditions, greater exploration when with comfort mother
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What conclusions did Harlow draw from his experiment?

A

innate drive to seek contact comfort suggest attachment through comfort not food contradicts learning theory.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What does the learning theory explanation of attachment explain?

A

learn to attach to their primary caregiver through the process of either classical conditioning or operant conditioning. focus on food. - “cupboard love”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What are the two processes in the learning theory of attachment?

A

Classical conditioning

Operant conditioning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

What is classical conditioning?

A

A process of learning by associating two stimuli together to condition (learn) a response.

Eg. mother gives food makes feel good so when mother is there feel good.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Draw a diagram explaining classical conditioning

A

UCS -> UCR

NS -> No conditioned response

NS + UCS -> UCR

CS -> CR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Who was the first psychologist to study operant conditioning?

A

Skinner (1938)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What did Skinners experiment show?

A
  • behaviour in non- human animals could be learned through consequences (reward or punishment).
  • reward = repeated action
  • punishment = action stopped .
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Which scientists linked operant conditioning with attachment?

A

Dollard and Miller (1950)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Is hunger or food the primary drive or the primary reinforcer?

A

Hunger - primary drive

Food - primary reinforcers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

What is positive reinforcement for infants attachment?

A

When the caregiver provides food, a feeling of pleasure is produced for the infant which is rewarding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

What perspective did Bowlby’s monotropic theory take?

A

Evolutionary perspective

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

What did Bowlby argue?

A

That children are born with an innate tendency to form attachments with their parents in order to increase chances of survival.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

What were Bowlby’s 5 key terms about attachment?

A
  1. Adaptive
  2. social releasers
  3. critical period
  4. monotrophy
  5. internal working model.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

What does adaptive mean?

A

attachments give humans an advantage

they are kept safe, given food and kept warm by their caregiver.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

What are social releasers?

A

inborn social releasers, which unlock an innate tendency in adults to care for them.

  • physical – ‘baby face’ - cutebig eyes and a button nose.
  • behavioural – crying, cooing and smiling to get attention.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

What are the two types of social releasers?

A

Physical and behavioural

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

What is the critical period of attachment for Bowlby?

A

three and six months of age.

Later - after it was possible however difficult after initial period

damaged for life – socially, emotionally, intellectually and physically.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

What is monotropy Bowlby?

A

one very special attachment with their primary caregiver, most frequently the mother.

If the mother is not available, the infant can bond with another ever- present adult, known as a mother substitute.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

What is the internal working model?

A
  • Through the monotropic attachment
  • internal template for future relationship expectations.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

What does Ainsworth’s strange situation test?

A

An observational method for testing strength of attachment between a caregiver and an infant devised by Ainsworth et al. (1971).

54
Q

What was the method of Ainsworth’s strange situation?

A
  • Infants aged between 9–18 months
  • unfamiliar room whereby they are left alone, left with a stranger and reunited with their caregiver.
  • covert observation - one-way mirror
  • Observations of the following behaviours were video recorded:
    • Separation anxiety/distress on separation
    • Reunion behaviour/seeking proximity
    • Exploration/safe-base behaviour
    • Stranger anxiety
55
Q

What three attachment types did Ainsworth identify?

A

Secure, Insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant.

56
Q

What proportion of people have a secure attachment type?

A

66%

57
Q

What proportion of people have an insecure-avoidant attachment type?

A

22%

58
Q

What proportion of people have an insecure-resistant attachment type?

A

12%

59
Q

What is exploration like for people with secure attachment types?

A

The infant explores unfamiliar environment, returning to the mother at regular intervals and using her as a safe-base.

60
Q

What is exploration like for people with insecure-avoidant attachment types?

A

The infant explores the unfamiliar environment but does not return to the mother and does not use her as a safe- base.

61
Q

What is exploration like for people with insecure-resistant attachment types?

A

The infant does not explore the environment around them, choosing the stay close to the mother, i.e. being clingy.

62
Q

What separation anxiety do children with secure attachment type have?

A

Moderate separation anxiety: the infant’s play is seriously disrupted when the mother leaves.

63
Q

What separation anxiety do children with insecure-avoidant attachment type have?

A

Low separation anxiety: the infant is not concerned by the mother’s departure.

64
Q

What separation anxiety do children with insecure-resistant attachment type have?

A

High separation anxiety: The infant is extremely distressed and violent when the mother leaves.

65
Q

What is stranger anxiety like for children with secure attachments?

A

Moderate stranger anxiety: the infant is wary of strangers and will move closer to the mother when she is present with the stranger.

66
Q

What is stranger anxiety like for children with insecure-avoidant attachments?

A

Low stranger anxiety: the infant is unconcerned about stranger and shows little preference between mother and stranger.

67
Q

What is stranger anxiety like for children with insecure-resistant attachments?

A

High stranger anxiety: the infant becomes extremely distressed when the stranger goes to comfort them.

68
Q

What reunion behaviour is demonstrated by children with secure attachments?

A

The infant is pleased to see the mother, seeks proximity and is easily comforted in her presence. The child shows joy on reunion.

69
Q

What reunion behaviour is demonstrated by children with insecure-avoidant attachments?

A

The infant shows little reaction upon the mothers return and often ignores her. The child does not seek proximity or show joy on reunion, i.e. avoids intimacy.

70
Q

What reunion behaviour is demonstrated by children with insecure-resistant attachments?

A

The infant is not easily comforted by mother – seeks but rejects (resists) attempts of mother’s comfort on reunion.

71
Q

What are the characteristics of a secure attachment type?

A

Safe-base with moderate seperation anxiety and stranger anxiety who shows joy on reunion.

72
Q

What are the characteristics of insecure-avoidant attachment type?

A

Explores and don’t use mother as safe-base. Low separation and stranger anxiety who avoids intimacy.

73
Q

What are the characteristics of insecure-resistant attachment type?

A

Don’t explore the environment with high levels of separation and stranger anxiety who resists attempts of mothers comfort on reunion.

74
Q

How studied the the strange situation?

A

Ainsworth

75
Q

Who studies cultural variations in attachment?

A

van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988)

76
Q

What method did Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg use?

A
  • meta-analysis of 32 studies
  • eight different countries
  • Ainsworth’s strange situation
  • over 1,990 infants were included in the analysis.
77
Q

What results could be seen in the cultural variations study?

A
  1. Secure most common - all the cultures examined.
  2. Japan and Israel (collectivist cultures) higher insecure–resistant
  3. Germany (an individualistic culture) higher insecure–avoidant
78
Q

What is the most common attachment type?

A

Secure

79
Q

What conclusion can be brought from the cultural variations study?

A

Reflect the US norm of secure attachment being the most common

adds weight to the argument that secure attachment is the optimal attachment type for healthy development.

80
Q

What did Tronick et al study?

A

Cultural similarities - 1992

81
Q

What was the study on cultural simialrities?

A
  • tribe in Africa
  • live in extended family groups infants are looked after and breastfed by different women
  • sleep with their own mothers at night.
  • differ greatly from Western norms, the infants preference primary attachment figure at six months old,
  • supporting van Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg’s main findings that secure attachment is the most common globally.
82
Q

What did Grossman and Grossman study?

A

Cultural differences

83
Q

How studied cultural differences?

A

Grossman and Grossman

84
Q

Explain grossman and grossmans study

A
  • German culture,
  • independence - infants do not seek interpersonal contact
  • insecurely attached in the strange situation since they do not seek proximity to their mothers or joy upon reunion.
85
Q

Who did a study on maternal deprivation?

A

Bowlby

86
Q

What is deprivation in attachment?

A

Deprivation occurs when an attachment bond is formed between an infant and caregiver but is broken later in life.

87
Q

What is the hypothesis of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study?

A

Critical period 0-2.5 years

If no attachment then at risk of behavioural and emotional disorders.

88
Q

What did Bowlby believe about maternal deprevation?

A

Lasting negative effects on a child in terms of their emotional development leading to possible mental health problems or maladjustment.

Up to 5 years

89
Q

What study did Bowlby do in 1944?

A

44 Juvenile theives

90
Q

What was Bowlby’s aim in the 44 thieves experiment?

A

To see if early separation associated with behavioural disorders.

affectionless psychopathy to describe individuals who have no sense of shame of guilt.

91
Q

What key word does Bowlby use?

A

affectionless psychopathy

92
Q

What method did Bowlby use in his study of the 44 thieves?

A
  • Children
  • 5–16 years old
  • guidance clinic in London
  • 44 of the children were criminals (guilty of theft)
  • 44 non-criminal participants
  • Bowlby interviewed the children and their families to create a record of early life experiences.
93
Q

What results did Bowlby see in the 44 thieves study?

A
  • 14 of the 44 thieves as affectionless psychopaths.
  • 86% (12 out of 14) of these experienced early and prolonged deprivation.
  • Only 17% of the ‘other thieves’ had experienced such separations
  • 4% of the control group had experienced frequent early separations.
94
Q

How proportion of Bowlby’s study were affectionless psychopaths?

A

14/44

95
Q

What proportion of affectionless psychopaths had experienced early and prolonged deprivation?

A

86% (12/14)

96
Q

What conclusions could Bowlby take from his stody on maternal deprivation?

A

link between early separations and later social maladjustment.

The maternal deprivation hypothesis appears to lead to affectionless psychopathy and antisocial behaviour.

97
Q

Why was there such a large proportion of orphaned children in Romania?

A
  • strict government rules.
  • Under dictatorship, abortion was banned and couples were required to birth large numbers of children in a bid to boost the population.
  • 100,000 children were reported to be in 600 state- operated orphanages.
98
Q

How many state operated orphanages were there in Romania?

A

600 with more than 100,000 children

99
Q

Who did a study on the effects of institutionalisation?

A

Rutter and Songua-Barke (2010)

100
Q

What study did Rutter and Songua-Barke (2010) do?

A

Romanian Orphan Studies: Effects of Institutionalisation

101
Q

What method did Rutter and Songua-Barke use?

A
  • experimental - 165 children early years Romanian orphanage.
  • 111 adopted before the age of two
  • 54 adopted by the age of four.
  • Control - 52 British children, who were adopted before they were six months old.
  • The social, cognitive and physical development of all infants was examined at regular intervals (age 4, 6, 11 and 15) and interviews were conducted with adoptive parents and teachers.
102
Q

What results did Rutter and Songua-Barke get?

A
  • At adoption - experimental - delayed development on all elements of social, cognitive and physical progress.
  • Physically smaller
  • weighed less
  • mentally retarded
  • Before six months caught up on development when compared to the British control group.
  • Aafter six months continued to show significant deficits in terms of social, cognitive and physical development.
  • More likely to experience difficulties with making or maintaining peer relationships and were often categorised as having disinhibited attachment disorder.
103
Q

What conclusions did Rutter and Songua-Barke get?

A

Institutionalisation can have severe long-term effects on development, especially if children are not provided with adequate emotional caregiving, i.e. adopted by two years old.

104
Q

Who did a study on the Bucharest Early Intervention Project?

A

Zeenah et al (2005)

105
Q

What aim did Zeenah et al set?

A

To investigate attachment type of children who had spent most of their life in institutional care.

106
Q

What method did Zeenah et al. use?

A
  • One hundred children
  • 12 months and 31 months
  • 90% spent most of their lives in an orphanage,
  • Control never institutionalised
  • strange situation methodology,
  • Assessed the infants’ attachment type.
  • The carers and parents asked about aspects of the infants’ behaviour including clinging, attention-seeking and appropriateness of behaviour towards adults
107
Q

What findings did Zeenah et al. get?

A
  • 74% control secure
  • 19% experimental secure.
  • 65% experimental disinhibited attachment.
108
Q

What conclusions did Zeenah et al draw?

A

Infants who spend their early years in institutional care, less likely to develop a secure attachment more likely experience a disinhibited attachment.

109
Q

What model links with the influence of early attachment?

A

Internal working model

110
Q

Who proposed the internal working model?

A

Bowlby (1969)

111
Q

What can the internal working model predict in an infant?

A

The likely outcomes of behaviour in childhood and adulthood.

112
Q

What did Kerns find about the relationships in Childhood?

A

Secure more inclined to have good quality peer relationships

Where insecure have difficulties with making or maintaining friendships.

113
Q

What did Sroufe et al find about relationships in childhood?

A
  • Minnesota child–parent study
  • infants rated high in social competence during childhood were more empathetic, popular and felt less isolated.
  • Role of the internal working model since infants who are securely attached will have positive expectations
  • provides the ideal platform for interacting with others during childhood.
114
Q

Who conducted the Minnesota child-parent study?

A

Sroufe et al.

115
Q

Who did a key study on the relationships in adulthood?

A

Hazan and Shaver - Romantic

116
Q

What study did Hazan and Shaver do?

A

Relationships in adulthood - romantic (1987)

117
Q

What was the aim of Hazan and Shavers study?

A

A questionnaire, termed the ‘Love Quiz’, designed to test the internal working model to assess if attachment type formed as an infant influences friendships and adult relationships.

118
Q

What procedure did Hazan and Shaver use on there study in the relationships in adulthood?

A
  • ‘Love Quiz’,
  • Local American newspaper
  • 620 volunteer responses (205 males and 415 females).
  • assess the individuals’ most important relationship.
  • ascertaining general experiences in love
  • feelings in relation to some statements.
119
Q

What findings did Hazan and Shaver get?

A

56% respondents were classified as securely attached.

25% with an insecure– avoidant attachment type

19% as being insecure–resistant.

120
Q

What conclusions could be taken from Hazan and Shaver’s study?

A

specific attachment type behaviours are reflected in adult romantic relationships

Internal working model

121
Q

What did Bailey et al. study?

A

The effect of relationships in adulthood on parenting

122
Q

What was Bailey et al.’s study?

A
  • Attachment type 100 mothers and their infants (assessed in the strange situation)
  • relationships they had with their own mothers established in interview.
  • women had the same attachment type to their infant as to their own mother
  • supporting internal working model influencing parenting style.
  • Harlow’s study using non-human animals also mirror this pattern.
123
Q

What points of evaluation can be used for caregiver-infant interactions?

A
  • Research support - Interactional synchrony correlates with attachment security - controlled observation - videos real and slow-motion - good external validity.
  • Well-controlled - filmed at multi-angles - babies unaware of study - reduced demand characteristics - and social reliability bias - good internal validity
  • issues studying infants - mouths in constant motion - expressions frequent - difficult to distinguish - not certain actions are deliberate - lack internal validity
124
Q

Evaluate the study by Schaffer and Emerson

A
  • limited explanation - correlational - not signify attachment - less external validity.
  • unreliable self-report method - based on mothers report - unreliable - social disability bias - systematic bias - lake internal validity - confounding variable
  • Biased sample - working class and historical context - 1960s - parental care changes - lack temporal validity - dads also help at home - lack pop validity
125
Q

Evaluate animal studies

A
  • correlational - food not only driver - 18 hours with cloth - applications in childcare - reform foster car - ecological validity
  • can’t generalise to humans - spoken language and different social environment - biologically determinism - assumptions - ignores cognitive and emotional differences - lack external validity
  • lack of validity - external validity questioned - research against - later study found imprinting is not permanent - lack internal validity
126
Q

evaluate learning theories of attachment

A
  • Good face validity -learn through association and reinforcement - attention and responsiveness important in attachments - reinforcers - ecological and pop validity
  • Lack of validity - research feeding not as important - feeding not key element - no unconditional - lack internal validity - not reliable
  • Studies undermine theory - not imprint on those who feed - soft surrogate in Harlow - correlational - lack internal validity
127
Q

Evaluate the research into the monostrophic theory

A
  • research support - cute behaviours improve interactions - primary attachment figures told to ignore actions and some children curled up or lay motionless - so strong reliability
  • lack external validity - S&E babies attach to one person - a minority to multiple - lack ecological validity - lack reliability
  • Ethical issues - controversial - implies mothers change child’s life - protection from psychological harm - mothers feel responsible - but ecological - real world applications - more people grow up secure.
128
Q

Evaluate ainsworths strange situation

A
  • Real world applications - intervention strategies develop when disordered patterns of attachment - circle of security project - caregivers better understand infants signals - decrease in disordered attachments - ecological validity
  • Strong reliability - inter-observer reliability - determined by comparing ratings - almost perfect agreement of 0.94 - very stong
  • Lack internal validity - children act differently depending on which parent - so lack as measuring one relationship, not both - so research of 9 different adults and found type was mainly influenced by mother - good external validity.
129
Q

Evaluate the research on maternal deprivation

A
  • Lack internal validity - Rutter criticises - doesn’t look at if the attachment has never been formed or broken - this may be worse - privation - lack clarity
  • Real-world applications - hospitals and foster care - parents separated when a child in hospital - case of 2 years old sees as distressed when at the hospital - ecological validity - care in hospitals
  • Individual differences - not all effected the same way - Berrett - secure okay but insecure distressed - TB treatment also found - lacks ecological validity - biologically reductionist
130
Q

Evaluate research done on institutionalisation

A
  • Deprivation not only factor in devlopment - orphams face emotional deprivation - physical conditions appalling - lack cognitive stimulation - questionable internal validity - biologically reductionist
  • real-world applications - Key workers - improve lives of children in care - early adoption - sensitive period - difficult attachments - good external validity - pop validity - ecological validity
  • Individual differences - Longitudinal studies give extremely valid data - unable to recover - some more effected - some children may have received more attention - lacks generalizability
131
Q

Evaluate research into the influence of early attachment

A
  • Low correlations - Revies accessing infants - correlation ranging 0.50 and 0.1 - may be as insecure resistant is more unstable - lacks ecological validity - lacks reliability
  • Methodological issues - retrospective self-report - H&S rely om retrospective classification -memories reconstructed - less accurate - not reliable - longitudinal study support - attachment type predicts relationships with parents - good external validity.
  • Too deterministic - research showed H&S fixed - children doomed due so emotionally unsatisfactory - but not the case - many research suggest vary - happy adult even if the insecure child - experimentally determinist - lack external validity

AS level Psychology (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions