Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Pychology G > Attachemnt 2 > Flashcards

Attachemnt 2 Flashcards

1
Q

Who developed the strange situation

A

Mary ainsworth

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

Strange situation : aim

A

Observe key attachment behaviours to assess the quality of child’s attachment

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

Strange situation : research method

A

controlled observation (artificial - two way mirror)

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

Strange situation : 5 behaviours used to judge attachment

A
  1. Proximity seeking (fairy close)
  2. Exploration and secure base behaviour (explore but parents always there)
  3. Stranger and separation anxiety
  4. Response to reunion (how attached)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Strange situation : 7 episodes

A
  1. Encouraged to explore (exploration and secure base)
  2. Stranger interacts with child (stranger anxiety)
  3. Caregiver leaves child and stranger (sep/stranger)
  4. Caregiver returns and stranger leaves (reunion +exploration)
  5. Caregiver leaves child (sep)
  6. Stranger returns (stranger)
  7. Caregiver reunited (reunion)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Strange situation : findings

Secure (B)

A
  • explore freely but go back
  • moderate sep / stranger
  • accept comfort at reunion
  • 60-75% British
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q 
Strange situation : findings
Insecure avoidant (A)
A
  • explore but no proximity of secure base
  • little / no sep / stranger anxiety
  • no comfort at reunion
  • 20-25% British
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q 
Strange situation : findings
Insecure resistant (C)
A
  • greater proximity and explore less
  • huge sep/stranger
  • resist comfort
  • 3%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Strange situation : evaluation +

A

+ integrated reliability (buck et al 94% agreement on attachment types of tested babies so different observers agree on how to classify children)
+ validity (predictitive for later life /insecure resistant worst white secure fo on to have successful relationships)

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

Strange situation : evaluation -

A
  • culture bound (tasahashi found test doesn’t work in Japan as mothers rarely separate from children so there’s high sep anxiety.Caregivers behave differently in different cultures so not generalisable)
  • SS measures childs response to anxiety of being in an unfamiliar community(Kalgan says temperament,genetically influenced personality, has more influence on behaviour in SS than attachment so its a confounding variable )
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Cultural variation : van ljzendoorn and kroonberg

A

Aim : if attachment styles were universal or cultural
Procedure : meta analysis (32 studies in 8 countries s)
Findings : secure most common (GB) , insecure resistant least common, Germany most avoidant and Japan least
Conclusion : consistency of secure shows some interactions could be innate

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

Cultural variation : Simonella

A

Aim : the proportion of babies of different attachment types matched in previous studies
Procedure : 76 12 month babies using strange situation
Findings : 50% secure and 36% insecure avoidant
Conclusion : lower secure may be due to mothers working long hours

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

Cultural variation : Jin et al

A

Aim: compare proportions of attachment types in Korea to other student
Procedure : strange situation and a free play situation with 87 babies
Findings : secure similar to most countries and insecure most were resistant except one
Conclusion : similar to Japan as Korea and Japan similar styles

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

Cultural variation : evaluation +

A

+ large samples (van ljzendoorn 2000 babies increases validity)

  • reduced impact Of anomalous results
  • validity challenged as Lagan suggested temperament is a confounding variable.Questions methodology
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Cultural variation : evaluation -

A
  • unrepresentative of culture (van comparisons between countries not cultures as one country may have differs culture.comparisons between countries may have little meaning so cultural characteristics need to be specified)
  • bias (ss American researcher based in British theory / might not apply to other cultures)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Maternal deprivation : what did Bowlby propose

A

Separation from a mother/mother substitute has serious effect on psychological development

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Maternal deprivation : definition

A

Emotional + intellectual consequences of prolonged separation between a. Child and his/her mother/mother substitute

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

Maternal deprivation : separation

A

Child not being in the presence of the primary caregiver

Schaffer and Emersons separation anxiety

19
Q

Maternal deprivation : deprivation

A

Prolonged separation can lead to deprivation as a child has lost an element of the mother/mother substitutes care = harm

20
Q

Maternal deprivation : critical period

A
  • Bowlby = 2 and a half years for psychological development

- Bowlby believed if a child is deprived during this time psychological damage was inevitable

21
Q

Maternal deprivation : deprivation of maternal care for too long during critical period =

A
  • delayed intellectual development

- abnormally low IQ

22
Q

Maternal deprivation : intellectual development study

A
  • Goldfarbs 30 orphaned children (age = 12)
  • half fostered for 4 months and other half orphaned
  • Stanford Binet test used and fostered group had an average in of 96 where’s orphaned group = 68 (below)
23
Q

Maternal deprivation : affectionless psychopathy

A
  • inability to experience guilt or strong emotion which prevents development of normal relationships
  • associated with criminality
  • lack remorse for actions
24
Q

Maternal deprivation : Bowlby s 44 thieves

A

Aim : link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation
Procedure : 44 criminal teens accused of theft interviewed alongside their families (to see if there was prolonged sep) + control group of non criminal but emotionally disturbed
Findings :
- 14/44 = affectionless psychopaths (12/44 experienced prolonged sep during critical period)
- 2/44 control experienced long separation
Conclusion : prolonged early separation caused affectionless psychopathy (limitation)

25
Q

Maternal deprivation : +

A

+ animal studies to support (levy et al showed separating baby rats had a permanent effect on social development which supports that maternal deprivation can have a long term effect)

26
Q

Maternal deprivation : -

A
  • Bowlbys evidence based on orphans in poor orphanages which may have caused the trauma.these factors may have caused developmental difficulties not maternal deprivation
  • cannot conclude separation caused affectionelss psychopathy = only 12/44 , may be a 3rd variable.may only be a correlation not causation
27
Q

Instutionalistaion

A
  • effects of growing up in an institute / orphanage
  • children raised this way often suffer from a lack of emotional care so they find it difficult to form normal attachment
28
Q

4 possible effects

A
  1. Physical underdevelopment
  2. Intellectual underdevelopment / mental retardation
  3. Disinhibited attachment
  4. Poor parenting
29
Q

Effects of institutionalisation : physical underdevelopment

A
  • physically small

- deprivation dwarfism

30
Q

Effects of institutionalisation : mental retardation

A
  • intellectual disability so intellectual capabilities lower than usual
  • interferes with learning , caring for yourself and meeting social expectations
31
Q

Effects of institutionalisation : disinhibited attachment

A
  • children equally friendly to strangers and people they know
  • these multiple attachments from and the child is unable to form secure attachments
32
Q

Effects of institutionalisation : poor parenting

A

E.g. Quintero’s compared woman raised at home vs an institution.ex institution woman had extreme difficulties and more of their children ended up in care.

33
Q

Institutionalisation : Rutter (English and Romanian adoptee)

A

Aim: if good after care could make up for effects of early institutionalisation
Procedure: 165 Romanian orphans adopted in GB and 52 British as control
Physical,cognitive and emotional development assessed at different ages
Findings: delayed intellectual development
Adopted before 6 = IQ(102) after 2 years (77)
Conclusion: institutionalisation effects intellectual development and its related to age of adoption.
Before 6 months

34
Q

Institutionalisation : Bucharest early intervention project

A

Aim: compare attachment types between Romanian children in institutional care vs those who haven’t experienced it.
Proc: strange situation in 95 children aged 12-21 months and compared to 50 children
Findings: 74% control and 19% institutional=secure
65%=disorganised attachment
Conclusion: institutionalisation has an effect on attachment and they’re more likely to experience disorganised attachment.

35
Q

Institutionalisation : evaluation (+)

A

+ application (increased understanding of institutionalisation which leads to improvements in the way children are treated.practical application)

36
Q

Institutionalisation : evaluation (-)

A
  • generalisability (Romanian orphanages much worse and they had lower standards of care.unusual situational variables therefore studies lack generalisability)
  • long term (studies don’t give long term effects as they stopped assessing teens after midd-teens.unsure if effects improve with age)
37
Q

Influence of attachment on later relationships

A
  • Internal working model
  • relationships in later childhood
  • relationships with romantic partners
  • relationships as parents
38
Q

Later relationships : internal working model

A
  • bowlbys mental framework of relationships with the primary attachment figure
  • quality of first attachment must be good as it will affect future relationships
39
Q

Later relationships : later childhood

A
  • securely attached form best friendhships
  • Myron and smith assessed attachment type and bullying through questionnaires
  • secure not involved in bullying
  • insecure avoidant victims
  • insecure resistant be bullies
40
Q

Later relationships : romantic partners

A
  • McCarthy studied 40 woman and secure had best relationships
    Insecure resistant had problems maintaining and avoidant struggled with intimacy
  • hazan and shaver love quiz where secure had long relationships and avoidant showed jealousy
41
Q

Later relationships : parents

A
  • based on IWM

- bailey et al assessed 99 mothers and most has the same classification as their mothers

42
Q

Later relationships : evaluation (+)

A

+ face validity
Quality of infant attachment has influence of later relationships supported by bowlby
However Ann and Alan Clarke suggests influence is probabilistic as people are not determined to have bad relationships, just higher risk

43
Q

Later relationships : evaluation (-)

A
  • evident on continuity is mixed (Zimmerman found little relationship between infant and adult attachment types to parents.doesnt support IWM
  • issues with validity (retrospective as researcher looks back on early memories and recollections from childhood may be inaccurate)

Pychology G (7 decks)

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