Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

AQA A Level Psychology > 4.1.3 - Attachment > Flashcards

4.1.3 - Attachment Flashcards

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

Attachment

A

A close two-way emotional bond between two individuals in which each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security

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

What is reciprocity?

A
  • develops at about 3 months
  • each person responds to the other and elicits a response from them
  • take turns in doing this
  • described by Brazelton (1975) as a dance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is interactional synchrony?

A
  • mother and infant reflect both the actions and emotions of the other and do this in a co-ordinated way
  • actions and emotions mirror the other
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Caregiver-infant interactions studies?

A

Meltzoff and Moore (1977) ⮕ Adults displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions or 1 of 3 distinctive gestures. Association was found between the expression or gesture the adult displayed and the actions of the babies - shows interactional synchrony.

Isabella et al (1989) ⮕ Observed 30 mothers and infants together and assessed degree of synchrony. Also assessed quality of mother-infant attachment. They found that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant attachment - shows interactional synchrony is important for development of mother-infant attachment.

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

Evaluation of caregiver-parent interactions?

A

:) - Research support from Isabella et al. and Meltzoff and Moore
:) - Controlled observations capture fine details

:(- It is hard to know what is happening when observing infants - difficult to know what is taking place from infants perspective, is the infant’s imitation deliberate?

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

What did Schaffer and Emerson believe the role of the father to be?

A
  • they are secondary attachments - usually formed at around 7 months
  • 75% of infants studied - attachment formed with father by 18 months
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What did Grossman believe the role of the father to be?

A
  • longitudinal study
  • suggested fathers were less important
  • BUT quality of father’s play with infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments
  • suggests fathers have a different role - one that is more to do with play and stimulation - less to do with nurturing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What did Field believe the role of the father was?

A
  • Fathers can be primary caregivers if they spend more time smiling, imitating and holding the infants
  • Fathers can be the more nurturing attachment figure
  • Level of responsiveness is important, not the gender
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Evaluation of the role of the father?

A

:( - inconsistent findings on fathers - some researchers interested in fathers as secondary caregivers, some are more interested in fathers as secondary caregivers
:( - children without fathers conflicting evidence - same-sex parents didn’t develop children differently.
:( - socially sensitive research - may make mothers who return to work early feel guilty as they may be restricting their child’s development
:) - real world application - can be used to offer advice to parents - parental anxiety about the role of the father can be reduced

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study?

A

Aim: to investigate the formation of early attachment

Method: 31 male babies, 29 female - Glasgow. Majority from skilled working-class families. Visited every month for first year, then at 18 months. Researcher asked questions about protest shown by their babies in 7 everyday separations.

Findings: between 25 and 32 weeks, 50% of babies showed signs of separation anxiety towards a particular adult (usually mother). Attachment tended to be caregiver who was most interactive and sensitive to infant signals - not who spent the most time with the infant

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

Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson (1964)?

A

:) - good external validity - most of observations carried out in own homes
:( - longitudinal study - would have been quicker to carry out cross-sectional study
:) - longitudinal study = better internal validity - no confounding variable of participant variables
:( - limited sample characteristics - all families involves from the same district and social class - also 50 years ago - lacks generalisability and population validity

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

Schaffer’s stages of attachment?

A
  1. ASOCIAL STAGE - behaviour towards objects and humans is similar, babies show some preference for familiar adults, happier in the presence of humans
  2. INDISCRIMINATE STAGE - 2-7 months - recognise and prefer familiar adults, accept cuddles/comfort from any adult, don’t usually show separation/stranger anxiety, behaviour not different towards any one person
  3. SPECIFIC STAGE - around 7 months - start to display anxiety towards strangers and when separated from particular caregiver. Baby has formed specific attachment - usually primary attachment figure (the one who offers the most interaction and responds to the baby’s ‘signals’ with most skill).
  4. MULTIPLE ATTACHMENTS - extend attachment behaviour to multiple people. Called secondary attachments. By the age of 1 yr the majority of infants had developed multiple attachments.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Evaluation of Schaffer’s stages of attachment?

A

:( - hard to study asocial stage
:( conflicting evidence on multiple attachments - Van Ijzendoorn et al - multiple attachments from birth
:) - real-world application - practical application in day care

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

Define imprinting

A

Where the young follow and form an attachment to the first large moving object they meet.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What was the procedure of Lorenz’s geese study?

A
  • Randomly divided a clutch of goose eggs - half eggs hatched naturally and other half in incubator with Lorenz.
  • He made sure he was the first moving object the gosling saw when they hatched.
  • Lorenz marked all of the goslings so he could determine whether they were from the naturally hatched group or the incubated ones and placed them in an upturned box.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What were the results of Lorenz’s study?

A
  • The incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere whereas the control group who hatched in the presence of their mother, followed her (especially when the they were released from the upturned box).
  • These bonds proved to be irreversible
  • Lorenz also identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place - for geese it is a few hours after hatching (12-16).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What did Lorenz’s discover about sexual imprinting?

A

He observed that birds that imprinted on a human would often display courtship behaviour towards humans.

In 1952, he described a peacock that had been reared in a reptile house of a zoo where the first moving objects the peacock saw after hatching were giant tortoises. As an adult, this bird would only direct courtship behaviour towards giant tortoises - he had undergone sexual imprinting.

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

Issues with Lorenz’s research and findings?

A

:( - Difficult to generalise to humans - birds are very different to humans , mammals may be able to form attachments at any time.

:( - Case study - difficult to generalise from single case

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

What did Guiton et al find about sexual imprinting?

A

Found that chickens who imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults (as Lorenz predicted), but that with experience they eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What was the procedure of Harlow’s research on monkeys?

A
  • 2 types of surrogate mother were constructed - a harsh ‘wire mother’ and a soft cloth mother.
  • 16 baby rhesus monkeys were used
  • In one condition milk was dispensed by the plain wire mother
  • In a second condition the milk was dispensed by the cloth-covered mother
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What were the findings of Harlow’s research on monkeys?

A
  • He found that the baby monkeys cuddles the soft object in preference to the wire one and sought comfort from the cloth one when frightened regardless of which dispensed milk.
  • This showed that contact comfort was of more importance to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour.
  • He also found that the critical period for monkeys was 90 days - after this time, attachment was impossible and damage caused is irreversible.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What did Harlow find when the baby monkey’s grew up?

A
  • Even those reared with just a soft toy as a substitute did not develop normal social behaviour - they were more aggressive and less social than other monkeys and bred less often than is typical, being unskilled in mating.
  • As mothers some of the deprived monkeys neglected their young and others attacked their children, even killing them in some cases
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Evaluation of Harlow’s research?

A

:( - Ethical issues - monkeys suffered greatly as a result of the experiment and some even died.
:( - Difficult to generalise to humans - more similar than Lorenz’s geese, but still not human.
:) - Theoretical value - has profound effect on psychologist’s understaning of human mother-infant attachment.
:) - Practical value - important applications e.g. helps social workers understand risk factors in child neglect.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What did Dollard and Miller (1950) propose?

A
  • That caregiver-infant interaction can be explained by learning theory
  • This is sometimes called a ‘cupboard love’ approach - emphasises importance of caregiver as a provider of food
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

How do learning theory and attachment relate? (classical conditioning)

A
  • Food = unconditioned stimulus
  • Pleasure = unconditioned response
  • Caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus
  • When the same person provides food over time they become associated with food - the neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus
  • Once conditioning has taken place the sight of the caregiver produces a conditioned response of pleasure
  • To a learning theorist this is love
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

How do learning theory and attachment relate? (operant conditioning)

A
  • Crying leads to a response from a caregiver, e.g. feeding
  • As long as caregiver provides correct response, crying is reinforced (positive reinforcement)
  • Two-way process - at same time as baby is reinforced for crying, caregiver receives negative reinforcement as they are avoiding something unpleasant
  • Mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What is drive reduction?

A
  • Where hunger is seen as a primary drive (an innate biological motivator) and we are motivated to eat in order to reduce the hunger drive
  • Sears et al - as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them - this attachment is a secondary drive learned by association
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Evaluation of learning theory in attachment?

A

:( - Counter evidence from animal research - Lorenz’s geese and Harlows rhesus monkeys
:( - Counter evidence from human research - Schaffer and Emerson - many babies developed primary attachment to their mother even though other carers did most of the feeding
:( - Ignores other factors - such as interactional synchrony

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

What is Bowlby’s monotropic theory?

A
  • It puts emphasis on attachment to one particular caregiver
  • The attachment to this caregiver is different/more important than others
  • Called the ‘mother’ but need not be the biological mother
  • The more time spent with this figure, the better
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What are the 2 principles in Bowlby’s monotropic theory?

A

The law of continuity: The more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of their attachment.

The law of accumulated separation: The effects of every separation from the mother add up ‘and the safest dose is therefore a zero dose’ (1975).

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

What are social releasers?

A

→A set of innate ‘cute’ behaviours babies are born with to encourage attention from adults e.g. gripping, cooing.

  • purpose is to activate adult attachment system - makes adult feel love for a baby.
  • attachment is a reciprocal process → mother and baby both have innate predisposition to become attached and social releasers trigger that response in caregivers.
  • interplay between infant and adult systems gradually builds the relationship.
32
Q

What is the critical period?

A

The time when attachment is likely → after this, attachments cannot be formed with caregivers.

  • Bowlby proposed there is a critical period when the infant attachment system is active - around 2 years
  • Bowlby viewed this as more of a sensitive period - a child is maximally sensitive at age 2 but if an attachment is not formed in this time, a child will find it much harder to form one later.
33
Q

What is the internal working model?

A

Bowlby proposed that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary caregiver.

  • serves as a model for what relationships are like
  • has powerful effect on future relationships
  • e.g. child whose first experience of a relationship is loving with a reliable caregiver they will tend to form an expectation that all relationships are loving and reliable
  • internal working model affects a child’s later ability to be a parent of themselves → base parenting on behaviour on own experiences of being parented
34
Q

Bowlby’s monotropic theory evaluation?

A

:) - Support for social releasers → Brazelton et al. (1975) - Observed mothers and babies during their interactions, reporting the existence of interactional synchrony. The mothers then ignored their social releasers and the babies showed some distress but, when the attachment continued, some responded by curling up and lying motionless.

:) - Support for internal working model → Bailey et al (2007) - Mothers who reported poor attachments to their own parents in the interviews were much more likely to have children classified as poor according to the observations.

:( - Mixed evidence for monotropy → Studies aren’t consistent e.g. Schaffer and Emerson found a minority appeared to be able to form multiple attachments at the same time however Seuss (1992) found that attachment to the mother was more important in predicting later behaviour.
:( - Socially sensitive idea → law of accumulated separation may prevent mothers from going back to work.
:( - Temperament (personality) may be more important in early experience rather than attachment.

35
Q

What was the procedure of Ainsworth’s strange situation?

A

The Strange Situation was a controlled observation designed to measure the security of attachment a child displays towards a caregiver.
It takes place in a room with controlled conditions with a two-way mirror through and/or cameras through which psychologists can observe the infants behaviour.

36
Q

Behaviours used to judge attachment in strange situation?

A

Proximity seeking → babies with good quality attachments will stay fairly close to their caregiver

Exploration and secure-base behaviour → good attachment enables a baby to feel confident to explore, using their caregiver as a secure base

Stranger anxiety → sign of becoming attached is a display of anxiety when a stranger approaches

Separation anxiety → another sign of attachment - protesting at separation from caregiver

Response to reunion → securely attached babies greet the caregiver’ return with pleasure and seek comfort

37
Q

Method of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation?

A

Occurs in 7 episodes which last 3 minutes in total:

  1. The child is encouraged to explore
  2. A stranger comes in and tries to interact with the child
  3. The caregiver leaves the child and stranger together
  4. The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves
  5. The caregiver leaves the child alone
  6. The stranger returns
  7. The caregiver returns and is reunited with child
38
Q

What are the 3 attachment types?

A

Secure attachment (Type B)

Insecure-avoidant attachment (Type A)

Insecure-resistant attachment (Type C)

39
Q

What is involved in the secure attachment type? (Type B)

A
  • children explore happily but regularly go back to caregiver (proximity-seeking and secure base behaviour)
  • require and accept comfort in the reunion stage
  • about 60-75% of British children are classified as secure
40
Q

What is involved in the insecure-avoidant attachment type? (Type A)

A
  • explore freely but to not seek proximity or show secure base behaviour
  • little or no reaction shown when caregiver leaves
  • little effort to make contact when caregiver returns
  • shows little stranger anxiety
  • 20-25% of toddlers
41
Q

What is involved in the insecure-resistant attachment type? (Type C)

A
  • seek greater proximity than others so explore less
  • show huge stranger and separation distress
  • resist comfort when reunited with carer
  • around 3% of British toddlers
42
Q

Strengths of the strange situation?

A

:) - Support for validity → attachment type as predicted by the SS is strongly predictive of later development . Babies assessed as secure tend to have better outcomes in many areas e.g. success at school, romantic relationships, friendship in adulthood.
:) - Good reliability → Good inter-rather reliability due to high levels of control and because the behavioural categories are easy to observe.

43
Q

Limitations of the strange situation?

A

:( - Culture bound → May not have the same meaning in countries outside Western Europe and the USA e.g. Takahashi (1990) found that the test doesn’t work in Japan - Japanese mothers rarely separated from babies = high separation anxiety.
:( - Potential confounding variable → Kalgan (1982) suggested that temperament is a more important influence of behaviour in the SS than attachment meaning temperament may be a confounding variable.
:( - More attachment types → Minority of children display atypical attachments that do not fall within types A,B or C - commonly known as disorganised attachment which involves a display of resistant and avoidant behaviours.

44
Q

Who conducted a meta analysis on cultural variations of attachment?

A

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)

45
Q

What are collectivist and individualist cultures?

A

Individualist: Emphasises personal independence and achievement, placing importance on the individual.

Collectivist: Emphasises the importance of the group as a collective - groups live and work together, sharing tasks, belongings and child rearing. They value interdependence.

46
Q

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg procedure?

A

Studied proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments.
Researched 32 separate studies carried out in 8 countries using SS and studied 1990 babies.

47
Q

Ijzendoorn and Kroonberg findings?

A
  • In all countries, secure attachment was most common
  • Insecure-resistant was least common type

Secure = highest in GB, lowest in China
Insecure-avoidant = highest in Germany, lowest in Japan
Insecure-resistant = highest in Israel and Japan, lowest in GB + Sweden

48
Q

Other cultural variations studies?

A

Simonella et al. (2014)
- Researchers assessed 76 12-month olds in Italy using the Strange Situation
- Found 50% were secure, 36% insecure-avoidant
- Lower rate of secure attachment than found in other studies (may be due to increasing mothers working long hours)
- Suggests that cultural changes can make a dramatic difference to patterns of secure + insecure attachment.

Jin et al. (2012)
- Strange Situation was used to assess 87 children in South Korea
- Overall proportions of insecure and secure similar to most countries
- However, most insecure attached were resistant.
- Similar distribution to attachment types in Japan

49
Q

Evaluation of cultural variations of attachment?

A

:) - Large samples - Especially in Van Ijzendoorn’s meta analysis as almost 2000 babies studied → increases generalisability and external validity and reduces anomalies in results.

:( - Samples unrepresentative - samples may over-represent certain groups of people ( e.g. people in poverty) which means that comparisons between countries may have little meaning

:( - Biased method of assessment - SS designed by American researcher based on British theory → imposed Etic - can the assessment be applied to other cultures?

:( - Alternative explanations for cultural similarity - Bowlby stated that cultural similarities suggests attachment is innate and universal. Produced same behaviours all over the world.

:( - Strange situation lacks validity - Might be measuring temperament instead on attachment

50
Q

What does Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory focus on?

A

The idea that the continual presence of nurture from a mother or mother-substitute is essential for normal psychological development of babies and toddlers

51
Q

Define separation

A

Not being in the presence of the primary attachment figure.
Only an issue if the child is deprived e.g. they lose an element on their care.

Brief separations are not significant for development but extended separations can lead to deprivation.

52
Q

What is the critical period for humans?

A

First 30 months of life (2.5 years).
If the child is separated from their mother in the absence of suitable substitute care psychological damage is inevitable.

53
Q

Effects of maternal deprivation on development?

A

Intellectual development:
Abnormally low IQ → shown by Goldfarb (1947) → lower IQ in children who remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and thus had higher standard of emotional care.

Emotional development:
Affectionless Psychopathy → Inability to experience guilt or strong emotion for others. Prevents development of normal relationships. (Tend to do well in career)
Associated with criminality - cannot empathise so lack remorse for their actions.

Disinhibited attachment

54
Q

Bowlby’s 44 Thieves Study procedure?

A

Examined link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation.

Procedure:
- 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
- “Thieves” were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy
- Their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether the ‘thieves’ had prolonged early separations from their mothers
- A control group of non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people was set up to see how often maternal separation/deprivation occurred in the children who were not thieves

55
Q

Bowlby’s 44 Thieves Study findings?

A
  • 14 of the 44 thieves showed characteristics of Affectionless Psychopathy
  • Of this 14, 12 had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers during infancy (first 2 years of their lives)
  • In contrast, only 5 of these 30 thieves had experienced separations
  • In non-criminal group, only 2 had experienced similar early separation

Concluded that the effects of maternal deprivation had caused affectionless psychopathy and delinquent behaviour

56
Q

Evaluation of Bowlby’s 44 Thieves study?

A

:) Has control group
:) Internal validity

:( Androcentric
:( Ethnocentric
:( Social desirability bias (questionnaire)
:( Small sample size

57
Q

Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory evaluation?

A

:) - Animal studies show effects of maternal deprivation

:( - Evidence may be poor - Bowlby drew on a number of sources fro maternal deprivation including studies of children orphaned during the Second World War, those growing up in poor quality orphanages, and the 44 thieves study → may lack temporal validity.
:( - Hilda Lewis (1954) - Partially replicated 44 thieves study on larger scale - 500 young people. In her sample a history of early prolonged separation from the mother did not show affectionless psychopathy. → Suggests that extraneous variables may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation, decreasing reliability and validity.
:( - Critical period more of a sensitive period
:( - Failure to distinguish between deprivation and privation

58
Q

What is deprivation?

A

Loss of the primary attachment figure after attachment has developed

59
Q

What is privation?

A

The failure to form any attachment in the first place

60
Q

What is the case of Genie?

A
  • Found at the age of 13
  • Tied to a potty chair for most of her life
  • Was severely punished for making a noise
  • When found she had the appearance of a six or seven year old
  • Following her discovery she continued to be mistreated at hands of the doctors and psychologists
  • Never acquired full language skills and failed to adjust socially
61
Q

Why were Romanian orphans studied?

A

1990s
- Romania’s orphan problem began under the communist rule of Nicolas Ceausescu
- Woman were required to have 5 children
- Abortion was banned and people were denied access to contraception at a time of severe food and energy shortages
- Many Romanians abandoned their newborns children, leaving thousands to suffer at under-funded, state-run orphanages

62
Q

Rutter’s ERA (English and Romanian Adoption) study procedure?

A

Longitudinal study
- 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain
- Tested to what extent good care can make up for poor early experience in institutions
- Physical, cognitive and emotional development has been assessed at ages 4,6,11 and 15 years. A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time have served as a control group

63
Q

Rutter’s ERA (English and Romanian Adoption) study findings?

A
  • When they first arrived in the UK 1/2 the adoptees showed signs of delayed intellectual development and most were undernourished.
  • At age 11 the adopted children showed differential rates of recovery that were related to their age of adoption.
  • The mean IQ of those adopted before 6 months = 102
  • The mean IQ of those adopted after 6 months = 86
  • The mean IQ for those adopted after 2 years = 77

Children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment called disinhibited attachment.
Symptoms include attention seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.

64
Q

The Bucharest Early Intervention project procedure?

A

Zealand et al (2005)
- Assessed attachment in 95 children aged 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutional care.
- They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
- Their attachment type was measured using the Strange Situation.
- Carers were asked about unusual social behaviour including clingy, attention-seeking behaviour directed inappropriately at all adults (i.e. disinhibited attachment).

65
Q

The Bucharest Early Intervention project findings?

A
  • Found that 74% of the control group came out as securely attached in the Strange Situation
  • However, only 19% of the institutional were securely attached
  • 65% classified with disorganised attachment
  • The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children as opposed to less than 20% of the controls
66
Q

Evaluation of Romanian orphan studies?

A

:) - Real life application - ecological validity
:) - Longitudinal study - controls for participant variables (Rutter)
:) - Fewer confounding variables than other Orphan studies - higher internal validity
:) - Relatively large sample size
:) - Control group - internal validity

:( - Unethical
:( - Ethnocentric
:( - Strange situation (limitations of SS)
:( - Romanian orphanages were not typical - They had poor standards of care, especially when it came to forming any relationship with the children, and extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation → unusual situational variables mean the studies may lack generalisability
:( - Long-term effects are not yet clear

67
Q

Effects of institutionalisation?

A
  1. Disinhibited attachment:
    → children are equally friendly and affectionate towards people they know well or who are strangers they have just met
    → highly unusual behaviour - most children in their second year show stranger anxiety
    → Rutter (2006) - An adaptation to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive period for attachment formation e.g. in poor quality institutions
  2. Intellectual disability:
    → Rutter’s study - most showed signs of disability when they arrived in Britain
    → However, most of those adopted before they were 6 months old caught up with the control group
    → Appears that, like emotional development, damage to intellectual development as a result of institutionalisation can be recovered provided adoption takes place before age of 6 months
68
Q

What is an internal working model? (According to Bowlby)

A
  • Quality of a child’s first relationship is crucial as this template will powerfully affect nature of child’s future relationships
  • A loving first relationship with reliable caregiver = seek functional relationships and behave functionally within them
  • Bad experience of first relationship will bring these bad experiences into later relationships
  • May struggle to form relationships in the first place or may not behave appropriately whilst in them
69
Q

How does attachment type influence relationships in later childhood?

A

Attachment type is associated with the quality of peer relationships in childhood.

→ Securely attached infants tend to go on to form the best quality childhood friendships
→ Insecurely attached infants later have friendship difficulties (Kerns,1994)

70
Q

How can attachment type predict bullying?

A

Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998):
- Assessed attachment type and bullying using standard questionnaires in 196 children aged 7-11 from London

→ secure - very unlikely to be involved in bullying

→ insecure-avoidant - were most likely to be victims

→ insecure-resistant - were most likely to be bullies

71
Q

How does attachment type influence relationships in adulthood with romantic partners?

A

McCarthy (1999) studied attachment and both romantic relationships and friendships

→ studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when they were infants to establish early attachment type
→ securely attached infants had the best adult friendship and romantic relationships
→ insecure-resistant as infants had particular problems maintaining friendships
→insecure-avoidant struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships

72
Q

What was Hazan and Shaver (1987) procedure?

A

Conducted a classic study of the association between the attachment and adult relationships.

Procedure:
→ Analysed 620 replies to a ‘love quiz’ printed in an American local newspaper
→ The quiz had 3 sections:
- the first assessed respondents’ current or most important relationship
- the second part assessed general love experiences such as number of partners
- the third section assessed attachment type by asking respondents to choose which of three statements best described their feelings

73
Q

What was Hazan and Shaver (1987) findings?

A
  • 56% of respondents were identified as securely attached
  • 25% insecure-avoidant
  • 19% insecure-resistant

Those reporting secure attachments were the most likely to have good and longer lasting romantic relationships.
The avoidant respondents tended to reveal jealousy and fear or intimacy.

These findings suggest that patterns of attachment behaviour are reflected in romantic relationships.

74
Q

Evaluation of Hazan and Shaver (1987)

A

:) Large sample size - easier to generalise and reduces the effects of extreme results
:( Social desirability bias
:( Sample may not be representative as it was a volunteer sample
:( Ethnocentric

75
Q

How does internal working model impact relationships in adulthood as a parent?

A

→ Internal working models affect the child’s ability to parent their own children.
→ Tend to base parenting style on their Internal Working Model so attachment type tends to be passed on through generations of a family.

  • Bailey et al.(2007) → looked at attachments of 99 mothers to their babies and to their own mothers by using strange situation
  • Majority of women had same attachment classification both to their babies and their own mothers
76
Q

Evaluation of influence of early attachment on later relationships?

A

:( - Contradictory evidence → Zimmerman - found there was a little relationship between quality of infant and adolescent attachment
:( - Issues of validity in most studies e.g. interviews/questionnaires
:( - Association does not mean causality - could be environmental factors e.g. temperament and parenting style
:( - Clarke and Clarke describe the influence of infant attachment on later relationships as probabilistic
:( - Self-report is conscious but Internal working models are not → Self-report involves conscious understanding of their relationships in most research which is hard to measure as IWMs are not conscious

AQA A Level Psychology (11 decks)

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