3.1: Rudi Schaffer and Peggy Emerson (1964)

Question 1

When was Schaffer and Emerson’s study conducted?

Answer 1

Schaffer and Emerson’s study was conducted in 1964

Question 2

What were the aims of Schaffer and Emerson’s study?

Answer 2

The aims of Schaffer and Emerson’s study were to:

1. Assess whether there was a pattern of attachment formation that was common to all infants
2. Identify and describe the distinct stages by which attachments form

Question 3

What was the method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson’s study?

Answer 3

The method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson’s study was that a longitudinal study was conducted upon a sample of 60
1. Newborn babies
2. Their mothers
from a working-class area of Glasgow

Question 4

The method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson’s study was that a longitudinal study was conducted upon a sample of 60 newborn babies (how many males and how many females) and their mothers from a working-class area of Glasgow?

Answer 4

The method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson’s study was that a longitudinal study was conducted upon a sample of 60
1. Newborn babies (31 males and 29 females)
2. Their mothers
from a working-class area of Glasgow

Question 5

The method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson's study was that a longitudinal study was conducted upon a sample of 60 newborn babies (31 males and 29 females) and their mothers from a working-class area of Glasgow.
When and where were the mothers and babies studied?

Answer 5

The mothers and babies were studied:

1. Each month for the first year of their lives in their own homes
2. Again at 18 months

Question 6

The method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson’s study was that a longitudinal study was conducted upon a sample of 60 newborn babies (31 males and 29 females) and their mothers from a working-class area of Glasgow.
The mothers and babies were studied each month for the first year of their lives in their own homes and again at 18 months.
What were conducted?

Answer 6

Observations were conducted

Question 7

The method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson’s study was that a longitudinal study was conducted upon a sample of 60 newborn babies (31 males and 29 females) and their mothers from a working-class area of Glasgow.
The mothers and babies were studied each month for the first year of their lives in their own homes and again at 18 months.
Observations were conducted, as well as what?

Answer 7

Observations were conducted, as well as interviews with the mothers

Question 8

The method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson's study was that a longitudinal study was conducted upon a sample of 60 newborn babies (31 males and 29 females) and their mothers from a working-class area of Glasgow.
The mothers and babies were studied each month for the first year of their lives in their own homes and again at 18 months.
Observations were conducted, as well as interviews with the mothers, with questions being asked about what?

Answer 8

Observations were conducted, as well as interviews with the mothers, with questions being asked about:
1. Whom infants smiled at
2. Whom they responded to
3. Who caused them distress
,ect

Question 9

The method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson's study was that a longitudinal study was conducted upon a sample of 60 newborn babies (31 males and 29 females) and their mothers from a working-class area of Glasgow.
The mothers and babies were studied each month for the first year of their lives in their own homes and again at 18 months.
Observations were conducted, as well as interviews with the mothers, with questions being asked about whom infants smiled at, whom they responded to, who caused them distress, ect.
Mothers also had to do what?

Answer 9

Mothers also had to keep a diary about their attachment with their infant

Question 10

The method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson’s study was that a longitudinal study was conducted upon a sample of 60 newborn babies (31 males and 29 females) and their mothers from a working-class area of Glasgow.
The mothers and babies were studied each month for the first year of their lives in their own homes and again at 18 months.
Observations were conducted, as well as interviews with the mothers, with questions being asked about whom infants smiled at, whom they responded to, who caused them distress, ect.
Mothers also had to keep a diary about their attachment with their infant.
How was attachment measured?

Answer 10

Attachment was measured in 2 ways:

1. Separation protest
2. Stranger anxiety

Question 11

The method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson’s study was that a longitudinal study was conducted upon a sample of 60 newborn babies (31 males and 29 females) and their mothers from a working-class area of Glasgow.
The mothers and babies were studied each month for the first year of their lives in their own homes and again at 18 months.
Observations were conducted, as well as interviews with the mothers, with questions being asked about whom infants smiled at, whom they responded to, who caused them distress, ect.
Mothers also had to keep a diary about their attachment with their infant.
Attachment was measured in 2 ways - Separation protest and stranger anxiety.
How was separation protest assessed?

Answer 11

Separation protest was assessed through several everyday situations

Question 12

The method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson’s study was that a longitudinal study was conducted upon a sample of 60 newborn babies (31 males and 29 females) and their mothers from a working-class area of Glasgow.
The mothers and babies were studied each month for the first year of their lives in their own homes and again at 18 months.
Observations were conducted, as well as interviews with the mothers, with questions being asked about whom infants smiled at, whom they responded to, who caused them distress, ect.
Mothers also had to keep a diary about their attachment with their infant.
Attachment was measured in 2 ways - Separation protest and stranger anxiety.
Separation protest was assessed through several everyday situations, including what?

Answer 12

Separation protest was assessed through several everyday situations, including the infant being:

1. Left alone in a room
2. Left alone with others
3. Left in the pram outside the shops
4. Left in the cot at night
5. Being put down after being held

Question 13

The method and procedure of Schaffer and Emerson’s study was that a longitudinal study was conducted upon a sample of 60 newborn babies (31 males and 29 females) and their mothers from a working-class area of Glasgow.
The mothers and babies were studied each month for the first year of their lives in their own homes and again at 18 months.
Observations were conducted, as well as interviews with the mothers, with questions being asked about whom infants smiled at, whom they responded to, who caused them distress, ect.
Mothers also had to keep a diary about their attachment with their infant.
Attachment was measured in 2 ways - Separation protest and stranger anxiety.
Separation protest was assessed through several everyday situations, including the infant being left alone in a room, left alone with others, left in the pram outside the shops, left in the cot at night and being put down after being held.
How was stranger anxiety assessed?

Answer 13

Stranger anxiety was assessed by the researcher starting each home visit by approaching the infant to see if this distressed the child

Question 14

What are the findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study?

Answer 14

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that most infants started to show separation protest when parted from the attachment figure at between 6 - 8 months

Question 15

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:
1. Most infants started to show separation protest when parted from the attachment figure at between 6 - 8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown when?

Answer 15

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that most infants started to show separation protest when parted from the attachment figure at between 6 - 8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown around one month later

Question 16

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:

1. Most infants started to show separation protest when parted from the attachment figure at between 6 - 8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown around one month later.
2. What did strongly attached infants have?

Answer 16

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that strongly attached infants had mothers who:

1. Responded to their needs quickly
2. Gave more opportunities for interaction

Question 17

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:
1. Most infants started to show separation protest when parted from the attachment figure at between 6 - 8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown around one month later.
2. Strongly attached infants had mothers who responded to their needs quickly and gave more opportunities for interaction.
What did weakly attached infants have?

Answer 17

Weakly attached infants had mothers who:

1. Responded less quickly
2. Gave fewer opportunities for interaction

Question 18

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:
1. Most infants started to show separation protest when parted from the attachment figure at between 6 - 8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown around one month later.
2. Strongly attached infants had mothers who responded to their needs quickly and gave more opportunities for interaction.
Weakly attached infants had mothers who responded less quickly and gave fewer opportunities for interaction.
3. By how many weeks old, what % of babies had a specific attachment to the primary caregiver?

Answer 18

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that by 40 weeks old, 80% of babies had a specific attachment to the primary caregiver

Question 19

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:
1. Most infants started to show separation protest when parted from the attachment figure at between 6 - 8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown around one month later.
2. Strongly attached infants had mothers who responded to their needs quickly and gave more opportunities for interaction.
Weakly attached infants had mothers who responded less quickly and gave fewer opportunities for interaction.
3. By 40 weeks old, 80% of babies had a specific attachment to the primary caregiver.
4. Most infants went on to do what?

Answer 19

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that most infants went on to develop multiple attachments

Question 20

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:
1. Most infants started to show separation protest when parted from the attachment figure at between 6 - 8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown around one month later.
2. Strongly attached infants had mothers who responded to their needs quickly and gave more opportunities for interaction.
Weakly attached infants had mothers who responded less quickly and gave fewer opportunities for interaction.
3. By 40 weeks old, 80% of babies had a specific attachment to the primary caregiver.
4. Most infants went on to develop multiple attachments.
At 18 months, what % of infants had at least 2 attachments?

Answer 20

At 18 months, 87% of infants had at least 2 attachments

Question 21

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:
1. Most infants started to show separation protest when parted from the attachment figure at between 6 - 8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown around one month later.
2. Strongly attached infants had mothers who responded to their needs quickly and gave more opportunities for interaction.
Weakly attached infants had mothers who responded less quickly and gave fewer opportunities for interaction.
3. By 40 weeks old, 80% of babies had a specific attachment to the primary caregiver.
4. Most infants went on to develop multiple attachments.
At 18 months, 87% of infants had at least 2 attachments, with what % having 5 or more attachments (multiple attachments)?

Answer 21

At 18 months, 87% of infants had at least 2 attachments, with 31% having:
1. 5
Or,
2. More
attachments (multiple attachments)

Question 22

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:
1. Most infants started to show separation protest when parted from the attachment figure at between 6 - 8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown around one month later.
2. Strongly attached infants had mothers who responded to their needs quickly and gave more opportunities for interaction.
Weakly attached infants had mothers who responded less quickly and gave fewer opportunities for interaction.
3. By 40 weeks old, 80% of babies had a specific attachment to the primary caregiver.
4. Most infants went on to develop multiple attachments.
At 18 months, 87% of infants had at least 2 attachments, with 31% having 5 or more attachments (multiple attachments).
5. What were of a similar nature?

Answer 22

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that attachments to different people were of a similar nature

Question 23

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:
1. Most infants started to show separation protest when parted from the attachment figure at between 6 - 8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown around one month later.
2. Strongly attached infants had mothers who responded to their needs quickly and gave more opportunities for interaction.
Weakly attached infants had mothers who responded less quickly and gave fewer opportunities for interaction.
3. By 40 weeks old, 80% of babies had a specific attachment to the primary caregiver.
4. Most infants went on to develop multiple attachments.
At 18 months, 87% of infants had at least 2 attachments, with 31% having 5 or more attachments (multiple attachments).
5. Attachments to different people were of a similar nature, with what?

Answer 23

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that attachments to different people were of a similar nature, with infants behaving in the same way to different attachment figures

Question 24

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:
1. Most infants started to show separation protest when parted from the attachment figure at between 6 - 8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown around one month later.
2. Strongly attached infants had mothers who responded to their needs quickly and gave more opportunities for interaction.
Weakly attached infants had mothers who responded less quickly and gave fewer opportunities for interaction.
3. By 40 weeks old, 80% of babies had a specific attachment to the primary caregiver.
4. Most infants went on to develop multiple attachments.
At 18 months, 87% of infants had at least 2 attachments, with 31% having 5 or more attachments (multiple attachments).
5. Attachments to different people were of a similar nature, with infants behaving in the same way to different attachment figures.
6. What % of infants’ prime attachment was not to the main carer?

Answer 24

39% of infants’ prime attachment was not to the main carer

Question 25

What are the conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study?

Answer 25

The conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that there is a pattern of attachment formation common to all infants

Question 26

The conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that there is a pattern of attachment formation common to all infants, which suggests what?

Answer 26

The conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that there is a pattern of attachment formation common to all infants, which suggests that the process is biologically controlled

Question 27

The conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:

1. There is a pattern of attachment formation common to all infants, which suggests that the process is biologically controlled.
2. Who are attachments more easily made with?

Answer 27

The conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that attachments are more easily made with:
1. Those who display sensitive responsiveness
,rather than
2. Those spending the most time with a child

Question 28

The conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:

1. There is a pattern of attachment formation common to all infants, which suggests that the process is biologically controlled.
2. Attachments are more easily made with those who display sensitive responsiveness, doing what, rather than those spending the most time with a child?

Answer 28

The conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that attachments are more easily made with:
1. Those who display sensitive responsiveness, recognising and responding appropriately to an infant’s needs
,rather than
2. Those spending the most time with a child

Question 29

The conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:

1. There is a pattern of attachment formation common to all infants, which suggests that the process is biologically controlled.
2. Attachments are more easily made with those who display sensitive responsiveness, recognising and responding appropriately to an infant’s needs, rather than those spending the most time with a child.
3. What are multiple attachments?

Answer 29

The conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that multiple attachments are:

1. The norm
2. Of similar quality

Question 30

The conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:

1. There is a pattern of attachment formation common to all infants, which suggests that the process is biologically controlled.
2. Attachments are more easily made with those who display sensitive responsiveness, recognising and responding appropriately to an infant’s needs, rather than those spending the most time with a child.
3. Multiple attachments are the norm and of similar quality, which opposes what?

Answer 30

The conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that multiple attachments are the norm and of similar quality, which opposes Bowlby’s idea that attachments are a hierarchy of:

1. One prime attachment
2. Other minor ones

Question 31

The conclusions of Schaffer and Emerson’s study are that:
1. There is a pattern of attachment formation common to all infants, which suggests that the process is biologically controlled.
2. Attachments are more easily made with those who display sensitive responsiveness, recognising and responding appropriately to an infant’s needs, rather than those spending the most time with a child.
3. Multiple attachments are the norm and of similar quality, which opposes Bowlby’s idea that attachments are a hierarchy of one prime attachment and other minor ones.
What did Schaffer comment?

Answer 31

Schaffer commented that there is nothing to suggest that mothering can’t be shared by several people

Question 32

What is the evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study?

Answer 32

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it was ethnocentric

Question 33

Weaknesses:

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it was ethnocentric, why?

Answer 33

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it lacks generalisability

Question 34

Weaknesses:

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it lacks generalisability, why?

Answer 34

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric

Question 35

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only what babies were used?

Answer 35

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used

Question 36

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a what background and from the same what?

Answer 36

As well as this, the 60 babies were:

1. Mostly from a working-class background
2. From the same district

Question 37

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (what)?

Answer 37

As well as this, the 60 babies were:

1. Mostly from a working-class background
2. From the same district (Glasgow)

Question 38

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
What does this mean?

Answer 38

This means that they’re not representative of the target population

Question 39

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, why?

Answer 39

This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one:
1. Culture
Or,
2. Social class

Question 40

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so what?

Answer 40

This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one:
1. Culture
Or,
2. Social class
,so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups

Question 41

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is what?

Answer 41

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that the research is out-of-date

Question 42

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, why?

Answer 42

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that the research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s

Question 43

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t what anymore?

Answer 43

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that the research is out-of-date, because it:

1. Was conducted in the 1960s
2. So isn’t applicable anymore

Question 44

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, why?

Answer 44

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that the research is out-of-date, because it:
1. Was conducted in the 1960s
2. So isn’t applicable anymore
,because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different

Question 45

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
Example

Answer 45

For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society

Question 46

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
What does this mean?

Answer 46

This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society

Question 47

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, why?

Answer 47

This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave

Question 48

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave.
In the 1960s, what were women mainly doing?

Answer 48

In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role

Question 49

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave.
In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, what are more women?

Answer 49

In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, more women are breadwinners

Question 50

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave.
In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, more women are breadwinners, have what and aren’t home to do what?

Answer 50

In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, more women:

1. Are breadwinners
2. Have a paid job
3. Aren’t home to spend time with their children as much

Question 51

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave.
In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, more women are breadwinners, have a paid job and aren’t home to spend time with their children as much.
3. It is what?

Answer 51

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it is unreliable

Question 52

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave.
In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, more women are breadwinners, have a paid job and aren’t home to spend time with their children as much.
3. It is unreliable, because how was the data collected?

Answer 52

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it is unreliable, because data was collected:
1. By direct observation
Or,
2. From the mothers

Question 53

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave.
In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, more women are breadwinners, have a paid job and aren’t home to spend time with their children as much.
3. It is unreliable, because data was collected by direct observation or from the mothers, with both sources prone to what?

Answer 53

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it is unreliable, because data was collected by direct observation or from the mothers, with both sources prone to:

1. Inaccuracy
2. Researcher or social desirability bias

Question 54

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave.
In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, more women are breadwinners, have a paid job and aren’t home to spend time with their children as much.
3. It is unreliable, because data was collected by direct observation or from the mothers, with both sources prone to inaccuracy and researcher or social desirability bias.
Example

Answer 54

Most data was from the mothers and so they could lie to make themselves look better by giving desirable answers

Question 55

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave.
In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, more women are breadwinners, have a paid job and aren’t home to spend time with their children as much.
3. It is unreliable, because data was collected by direct observation or from the mothers, with both sources prone to inaccuracy and researcher or social desirability bias.
Most data was from the mothers and so they could lie to make themselves look better by giving desirable answers.
Example

Answer 55

For example, mothers could want to come across as:

1. Very caring
2. Very attached to their child

Question 56

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave.
In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, more women are breadwinners, have a paid job and aren’t home to spend time with their children as much.
3. It is unreliable, because data was collected by direct observation or from the mothers, with both sources prone to inaccuracy and researcher or social desirability bias.
Most data was from the mothers and so they could lie to make themselves look better by giving desirable answers.
For example, mothers could want to come across a very caring and very attached to their child.
This means that the study lacks what?

Answer 56

This means that the study lacks internal validity

Question 57

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave.
In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, more women are breadwinners, have a paid job and aren’t home to spend time with their children as much.
3. It is unreliable, because data was collected by direct observation or from the mothers, with both sources prone to inaccuracy and researcher or social desirability bias.
Most data was from the mothers and so they could lie to make themselves look better by giving desirable answers.
For example, mothers could want to come across a very caring and very attached to their child.
This means that the study lacks internal validity, why?

Answer 57

This means that the study lacks internal validity, because it is:

1. Difficult to establish their earlier attachment
2. Therefore hard to conclude the effect of this on development

Question 58

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave.
In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, more women are breadwinners, have a paid job and aren’t home to spend time with their children as much.
3. It is unreliable, because data was collected by direct observation or from the mothers, with both sources prone to inaccuracy and researcher or social desirability bias.
Most data was from the mothers and so they could lie to make themselves look better by giving desirable answers.
For example, mothers could want to come across a very caring and very attached to their child.
This means that the study lacks internal validity, because it is difficult to establish their earlier attachment and therefore hard to conclude the effect of this on development.
4. What were there large individual differences in?

Answer 58

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that there were large individual differences in when attachments formed

Question 59

Weaknesses:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. It lacks generalisability, because it was ethnocentric, as only Scottish babies were used.
As well as this, the 60 babies were mostly from a working-class background and from the same district (Glasgow).
This means that they’re not representative of the target population, because child-rearing practices might differ from one culture of social class, so we cannot generalise the results from the study to other social/cultural groups.
2. The research is out-of-date, because it was conducted in the 1960s and so isn’t applicable anymore, because the way infants/children were brought up in the 1960s was different.
For example, there are more househusbands in today’s society.
This means that men can also be the primary caregivers in today’s society, because more men are taking paternity leave.
In the 1960s, women were mainly performing the nurturer role, whereas in today’s society, more women are breadwinners, have a paid job and aren’t home to spend time with their children as much.
3. It is unreliable, because data was collected by direct observation or from the mothers, with both sources prone to inaccuracy and researcher or social desirability bias.
Most data was from the mothers and so they could lie to make themselves look better by giving desirable answers.
For example, mothers could want to come across a very caring and very attached to their child.
This means that the study lacks internal validity, because it is difficult to establish their earlier attachment and therefore hard to conclude the effect of this on development.
4. There were large individual differences in when attachments formed, casting doubt on what?

Answer 59

The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that there were large individual differences in when attachments formed, casting doubt on the process of attachment formation being exclusively biological in nature

Question 60

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a what sample for a longitudinal study?

Answer 60

60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study

Question 61

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, what was the sample size?

Answer 61

The sample size was adequate

Question 62

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
What did it provide us with?

Answer 62

It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from

Question 63

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer what?

Answer 63

The study might not suffer participant variables

Question 64

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer participant variables, why?

Answer 64

The study might not suffer participant variables, because it was a longitudinal study

Question 65

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer participant variables, because it was a longitudinal study.
What children were followed up regularly?

Answer 65

The same children were followed up regularly

Question 66

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer participant variables, because it was a longitudinal study.
The same children were followed up regularly, which is better than what?

Answer 66

The same children were followed up regularly, which is better than:
1. ‘Cross sectioning’
Or,
2. Comparing 2 groups of children

Question 67

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer participant variables, because it was a longitudinal study.
The same children were followed up regularly, which is better than ‘cross sectioning’ or comparing 2 groups of children, why?

Answer 67

The same children were followed up regularly, which is better than ‘cross sectioning’ or comparing 2 groups of children, because if they used different babies at different ages, they would have had:

1. Different upbringings
2. So different attachments

Question 68

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer participant variables, because it was a longitudinal study.
The same children were followed up regularly, which is better than ‘cross sectioning’ or comparing 2 groups of children, because if they used different babies at different ages, they would have had different upbringings and so different attachments.
What does this mean?

Answer 68

This means that the study has better internal validity

Question 69

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer participant variables, because it was a longitudinal study.
The same children were followed up regularly, which is better than ‘cross sectioning’ or comparing 2 groups of children, because if they used different babies at different ages, they would have had different upbringings and so different attachments.
This means that the study has better internal validity, why?

Answer 69

This means that the study has better internal validity, because:

1. The same participants were used
2. So participant variables were not a confounding variable

Question 70

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer participant variables, because it was a longitudinal study.
The same children were followed up regularly, which is better than ‘cross sectioning’ or comparing 2 groups of children, because if they used different babies at different ages, they would have had different upbringings and so different attachments.
This means that the study has better internal validity, because the same participants were used and so participant variables were not a confounding variable.
3. What does the study have?

Answer 70

The study has:

1. Ecological validity
2. Mundane realism

Question 71

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer participant variables, because it was a longitudinal study.
The same children were followed up regularly, which is better than ‘cross sectioning’ or comparing 2 groups of children, because if they used different babies at different ages, they would have had different upbringings and so different attachments.
This means that the study has better internal validity, because the same participants were used and so participant variables were not a confounding variable.
3. The study has ecological validity and mundane realism, why?

Answer 71

The study has ecological validity and mundane realism, because it was conducted:

1. Under everyday conditions
2. In the families’ own homes

Question 72

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer participant variables, because it was a longitudinal study.
The same children were followed up regularly, which is better than ‘cross sectioning’ or comparing 2 groups of children, because if they used different babies at different ages, they would have had different upbringings and so different attachments.
This means that the study has better internal validity, because the same participants were used and so participant variables were not a confounding variable.
3. The study has ecological validity and mundane realism, because it was conducted under everyday conditions and in the families’ own homes and most observations (other than what) were done with who?

Answer 72

The study has ecological validity and mundane realism, because:

1. It was conducted under everyday conditions and in the families’ own homes
2. Most observations (other than stranger anxiety) were done with the actual parents

Question 73

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer participant variables, because it was a longitudinal study.
The same children were followed up regularly, which is better than ‘cross sectioning’ or comparing 2 groups of children, because if they used different babies at different ages, they would have had different upbringings and so different attachments.
This means that the study has better internal validity, because the same participants were used and so participant variables were not a confounding variable.
3. The study has ecological validity and mundane realism, because it was conducted under everyday conditions and in the families’ own homes and most observations (other than stranger anxiety) were done with the actual parents.
What does this mean?

Answer 73

This means that the study was reflective of real life

Question 74

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer participant variables, because it was a longitudinal study.
The same children were followed up regularly, which is better than ‘cross sectioning’ or comparing 2 groups of children, because if they used different babies at different ages, they would have had different upbringings and so different attachments.
This means that the study has better internal validity, because the same participants were used and so participant variables were not a confounding variable.
3. The study has ecological validity and mundane realism, because it was conducted under everyday conditions and in the families’ own homes and most observations (other than stranger anxiety) were done with the actual parents.
This means that the study was reflective of real life, so the behaviour of the children was what?

Answer 74

This means that the study was reflective of real life, so the behaviour of the children was:
1. The same
Or,
2. Similar
as it would be usually

Question 75

Strengths:
The evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that:
1. 60 is a large sample for a longitudinal study.
However, the sample size was adequate.
It provided us with a framework for the development of attachment to work from.
2. The study might not suffer participant variables, because it was a longitudinal study.
The same children were followed up regularly, which is better than ‘cross sectioning’ or comparing 2 groups of children, because if they used different babies at different ages, they would have had different upbringings and so different attachments.
This means that the study has better internal validity, because the same participants were used and so participant variables were not a confounding variable.
3. The study has ecological validity and mundane realism, because it was conducted under everyday conditions and in the families’ own homes and most observations (other than stranger anxiety) were done with the actual parents.
This means that the study was reflective of real life, so the behaviour of the children was the same or similar as it would be usually.
Therefore, what?

Answer 75

Therefore, the findings and conclusions from the study:

1. Can be seen as having high external validity
2. Can be applied outside the study