Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

attachment > attachment > Flashcards

attachment Flashcards

1
Q

interactions

A

babies have frequent and important interactions with their caregiver

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

what is reciprocity

A

turn-taking

mothers respond when baby is alert

from 3 months becomes more intense and reciprocal

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

what is interactional synchrony

A

same actions simultaneously

interactions co-ordinated from two weeks (Meltzoff and Moore)

quality of attachment related to synchrony (Isabella et al)

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

what verb best describes reciprocity

A

a dance

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

during interaction, the mother’s and baby’s signals are often seen to

A

synchronise

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

what is associated with good quality caregiver-infant attachment

A

high levels of interactional synchrony

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

caregiver-infant evaluation - filmed observations

A

capture fine detail, can establish inter-rater reliability and babies not aware of being observed

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

caregiver-infant evaluation - difficulty observing babies

A

hard to know meaning of small movement

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

caregiver-infant evaluation - developmental importance

A

observation of behaviour does not tell us about its importance in development

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

caregiver-infant evaluation - developmental importance - counterpoint

A

evidence from eg Isabella et al - suggests interactional synchrony is important for attachment

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

caregiver-infant evaluation - practical value versus ethics

A

attachment research has practical value but is controversial (implications for working mothers)

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

Outline APFC of Meltzoff and Moore research

A

A - to investigate the reciprocity between infants and their caregivers
P - Recording was made of an adult performing a stimuli and the infant’s reaction like tongue protrusions and head movements
F - Babies movements match the adult, all scores had more than 0.92 association
C - Infants engage in meaningful non-verbal communication which is intentional and innate

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

What were the 4 behavioural categories in meltzoff and moores study?

A

Mouth opening
Termination of mouth opening
Tongue protrusion
Termination of tongue protrusion

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

What is a strength of reciprocity?

A

Reciprocity in infancy is associated with later attachment type. Belsky found that infants securely attached at 12 months had been involved in a mid amount of reciprocity. Those with a low level of reciprocity tended to have insecure resistant attachment.

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

what is the asocial stage

A

first few weeks, same response to humans and objects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what is the indiscriminate stage

A 
2-7 months
preference for (familiar) people
no stranger/separation anxiety
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what is the specific stage

A

stranger and separation anxiety in regard to one particular adult = primary attachment figure (65% were mother)

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

what is the multiple attachment stage

A

soon after attachment - behaviour directed towards more than one adult (secondary attachments)

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

schaffer and emerson - stage - procedure

A

mothers of 60 working-class glasgow babies reported monthly on separation and stranger anxiety

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

schaffer and emerson’s stages findings

A

babies’ attachment behaviour progressed as detailed in schaffer and emerson’s stage theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

schaffer’s stages eval - good external validity

A

mothers did the observing so babies not stressed by being observed

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

schaffer’s stages eval - good external validity counterpoint

A

mothers might not have accurately noted behaviour

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

schaffer’s stages eval - poor evidence for the asocial stage

A

babies have poor co-ordination, so just may seem asocial

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

schaffer’s stages eval - real world application

A

no harm in starting at day care during asocial/indiscriminate stages

problematic starting day care in specific attachment stage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

schaffer’s stage eval - generalisability

A

data gathered only in 1960s working-class Glasgow eg multiple attachment may be different in collectivist cultures

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

in which of the stages does a child first display social behaviour towards all adults

A

the indiscriminate attachment stage

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

at what age do children usually start to form a specific attachment

A

7 months

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

in the 1964 study who were the participants

A

60 working-class children and their families from Glasgow

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

schaffer and emerson assessed what in babies?

A

separation and stranger anxiety

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

role of attachment to fathers

A

most babies attach to their father (75% by 18 months) but rarely as the first attachment (only 3% first sole attachment)

Schaffer and Emerson

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

distinctive role for fathers

A

fathers may have a distinctive role involving play and stimulation
Grossmann et al

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

fathers as primary attachment figures

A

those fathers who were primary caregivers were more responsive than secondary caregiver fathers

Field

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

role of father eval - confusion over research question

A

competing research questions prevent a simple answer about the father’s role

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

role of father eval - conflicting evidence

A

studies have reached different conclusions about a distinctive role for fathers

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

role of father eval - conflicting evidence - counterpoint

A

fathers may be predisposed to a role but single mothers and lesbian parents simply take on these roles

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

role of father eval - real world application

A

families can be advised about the father’s role in attachment

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

role of father eval - bias in research

A

preconceptions lead to observer bias, may affect some studies

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

Lorenz procedure

A

Goslings saw Lorenz when they hatched

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

Lorenz findings

A

newly-hatched chicks attach to the first moving object they see (imprinting)

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

lorenz sexual imprinting

A

adult birds try to mate with whatever species of object they imprint on

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

lorenz eval - research support

A

regolin and vallortigara observed chicks imprint on moving shapes

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

lorenz eval - generalisability to humans

A

attachment systems in birds are less complex and not two-way

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

lorenz eval - applications to human behaviour

A

imprinting explains computer operating system choice (Seebach)

44
Q

harlow procedure

A

baby monkeys given cloth-covered or plain-wire ‘mother’ with feeding bottle attached

45
Q

harlow findings

A

monkeys clung to cloth surrogate rather than wire one, regardless of which dispensed milk

46
Q

harlow - maternally deprived monkeys as adults

A

they grew up socially dysfunctional

47
Q

harlow - critical period for normal development

A

after 90 days attachments wouldn’t form

48
Q

harlow eval - real-world value

A

helps professionals (eg social workers) to promote bonding (Howe) also applied to zoos and breeding programmes

49
Q

harlow eval - generalisability to humans

A

monkeys more similar to humans than birds but human mind and behaviour are more complex

50
Q

harlow eval - ethical issues

A

procedure caused several long-term distress to participants, may not be outweighed by theoretical and practical benefits

51
Q

classical conditioning - caregiver

A

caregiver (neutral stimulus) associated with food (unconditioned stimulus)

caregiver becomes conditioned stimulus - now produces pleasure

52
Q

operant conditioning - caregiver

A

crying behaviour reinforced positively for baby and negatively for caregiver

53
Q

attachment as a secondary drive

A

attachment becomes a secondary drive through association with hunger

54
Q

learning theory eval - animal studies

A

counter-evidence

Lorenz and Harlow showed that feeding is not the key to attachment

55
Q

learning theory eval - studies on humans

A

counter-evidence
primary attachment figure not always person who does feeding (Schaffer and Emerson), quality of attachment related to interactional synchrony not feeding (Isabella et al)

56
Q

learning theory eval - some conditioning may be involved

A

conditioning (association with comfort) may influence the choice of the primary attachment figure

57
Q

learning theory eval - conditioning counterpoint

A

babies are more active in attachment than conditioning explanations suggest

58
Q

learning theory eval - social learning theory

A

involves modelling attachment behaviours, includes role of active baby

59
Q

what is monotropy

A

one particular attachment is different in quality and importance than others

60
Q

what are social releasers and the critical period

A

innate cute behaviours elicit care

critical period up to 6 months, possibly extending to 2 years

61
Q

what is the internal working model

A

mental representation of the primary attachment relationship
is a template for future relationships

62
Q

bowlby eval - validity of monotropy challenged

A

the primary attachment may be stronger but not different in nature

63
Q

bowlby eval - support for social releasers

A

babies became upset when attachment figure ignored social releasers (Brazelton et al)

64
Q

bowlby eval - support for internal working model

A

quality of attachment is passed on through generations (Bailey et al)

65
Q

bowlby eval - support for internal working model counterpoint

A

ignores other factors (eg genetic) in social behaviour and parenting (Kornienko)

66
Q

bowlby eval - feminist concerns

A

Bowlby’s views imply that mothers shouldn’t work outside the home (Burman), but Bowlby also have the mother’s role greater credit and the theory had real-world applications

67
Q

procedure of the strange situation

A

7 - stage controlled observation

assesses proximity-seeking, exploration and secure base, stranger and separation anxiety, response to reunion

68
Q

findings of the strange situation

A

babies show consistent patterns of attachment behaviour

types
secure - enthusiastic greeting, generally content, moderate anxiety

avoidant - avoids reunion, generally reduced responses

resistant - resists reunion, generally more distressed

69
Q

strange situation eval - good predictive validity

A

attachment type predicts later social behaviour eg school success, bullying (McCormick et al, Kokkinos)

70
Q

strange situation eval - good predictive counterpoint

A

94% agreement between trained observers (Brick et al)

71
Q

strange situation eval - test may be culture-bound

A

strange situation developed in Britain and US, other cultures have different experiences that affect behaviour in the strange situation (eg in japan, takahashi)

72
Q

strange situation eval - other attachment types

A

also type D (Main and Solomon) but related to abnormal experiences and outcomes

73
Q

cultural variations - van Ijzendoom and Kroonenberg’s research

A

compared rates of attachment type in 8 countries - more variation within than between countries

74
Q

cultural variations - other sutdies - simonelli et al

A

italian secure attachment rates dropped to 50%, may be due to increased day care

75
Q

cultural variations - other studies - jin et al

A

korean secure vs insecure attachment rates similar to other studies

insecure-avoidant similar to japan - could be due to similar child-rearing styles

76
Q

cultural variations - conclusions

A

it appears that attachment is innate and universal and secure attachment is the norm

however - cultural practices affect rates of attachment types

77
Q

cultural variations eval - imposed etic

A

behaviours in the strange situation have different meanings in different cultures (eg low affection = independence in Germany)

78
Q

cultural variations eval - confounding variables

A

apparent cultural differences might have been due to sample characteristics or environmental differences (eg room size)

79
Q

cultural variations eval - competing explanations

A

cross-cultural similarity may be due to innate system or media influences

80
Q

bowlby’s maternal deprivation - separation versus deprivation

A

physical separation only leads to deprivation when the child loses emotional care

81
Q

bowlby’s maternal deprivation - the critical period

A

the first 2.5 years are critical and deprivation in that time causes damage

82
Q

bowlby’s maternal deprivation - effects on development

A

goldfarb - deprivation causes low IQ

bowlby - deprivation of emotional care leads to affection-less psychopathy

83
Q

bowlby’s maternal deprivation - bowlby’s research

A

many more affectionless psychopaths than controls had prolonged early separations

84
Q

bowlby’s maternal deprivation eval - flawed evidence

A

bowlby may have been a biased observer

goldfarb’s study had confounding variables

85
Q

bowlby’s maternal deprivation eval - flawed evidence counterpoint

A

research with rats shows deprivation can harm social development (Levy at al)

86
Q

bowlby’s maternal deprivation eval - deprivation and privation

A

some of the 44 thieves may have been ‘prived’, deprivation may be less damaging - Rutter

87
Q

bowlby’s maternal deprivation eval - critical versus sensitive period

A

Czech twins’ recovery suggests it is a sensitive period

88
Q

bowlby’s maternal deprivation eval - conflicting evidence

A

no evidence for link between deprivation and psychopathy (eg Lewis( but other research supports it (Gao et al)

89
Q

romanian orphans - rutter et al

A

ERA project studied 165 romanian orphans adopted in UK later showed low IQ and disinhibited attachment

90
Q

romanian orphans - zeanah et al

A

BEI project found secure attachment in 19% of institutional group (74% in controls), disinhibited attachment in 44% (20% in controls)

91
Q

romanian orphans - effects of institutionalisation

A

disinhibited attachment and delay in intellectual development if institutionalisation continues after sensitive period for attachment

92
Q

romanian orphans eval - real world app

A

both institutional care and adoption practice have been improved using lessons from romanian orphans

93
Q

romanian orphans eval - fewer confounding variables

A

romanian orphans had fewer negative influence before institutionalisation than eg war orphans

94
Q

romanian orphans eval - fewer confounding counterpoint

A

especially poor conditions in romanian orphanages could be a confounding variable

95
Q

romanian orphans eval - lack of adult data

A

we don’t know the effects of institutional care on adult development

96
Q

romanian orphans eval - social sensitivity

A

findings report poor outcomes for late-adopted children, might affect self and others’ expectations

97
Q

influence of early attachments - internal working model

A

bowlby’s idea that the primary attachment relationship provides a template for later relationships

98
Q

influence of early attachments - relationships in childhood - kerns

A

securely attached children have better friendships

99
Q

influence of early attachments - relationships in childhood - myron-wilson and smith

A

securely attached children less likely to be involved in bullying

100
Q

influence of early attachments - relationships in adulthood - mccarthy

A

securely attached adults have better relationships with friends and partners

101
Q

influence of early attachments - hazan and shaver

A

secure responders had better and longer-lasting relationships, avoidant responders had fear of intimacy

102
Q

influence of early attachments - bailey et al

A

mothers’ attachment type matched that of their mothers and their babies

103
Q

influence of early attachments eval - research support

A

review (fearon and roisman) showed consistent links eg disorganised type and mental disorder

104
Q

influence of early attachments eval - research support counterpoint

A

regensburg longitudinal study (becker-stoll et al) no continuity in attachment type from 1 to 16 years

105
Q

influence of early attachments eval - validity issues with retrospective studies

A

self-report answers not always honest, and assumes that attachment type has remained the same into adulthood

106
Q

influence of early attachments eval - confounding variables

A

associations between attachment type and later development may be due to eg parenting style or genes

107
Q

influence of early attachments eval - balancing opportunity and risk

A

knowing early attachment type might cause self-fulfilling prophecies

attachment (1 decks)

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