Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

A-level Psychology > Attachment > Flashcards

Attachment Flashcards

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

What is attachment?

A

A 2-way emotional bond where each individual sees the other as vital for their emotional security

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

What are the 2 types of caregiver infant interactions?

A

Reciprocity and Interactional synchrony

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

What is reciprocity?

A

A mutal process (turn-taking) where each person responds to the other and elicts a response from them

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

By reciprocity being a mutal process, what does this suggest towards infants role in attachment?

A

They have an active role in attachment, not just caregiver

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

In terms of reciprocity, what is an alert phase?

A

Where the baby signals their readiness for interaction

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

How often did mothers respond to their infant’s alert phase, and who suggested this?

A

2/3 of the time
Feldman and Eidelman 2007

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

Who suggested that the mother’s response to the alert phase can vary, and why?

A

Finegood et al 2016
External factors eg: stress

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

What is interactional synchrony?

A

The caregiver and infant reflect eachother’s actions and emotions (mirroring) in a coordinated way

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

Who did a study into interactional synchrony and when?

A

Meltzoff and Moore 1977

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

In Meltzoff and Moore’s 1977 study on interactional synchrony, how young were the babies?

A

From 2 weeks +

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

In Meltzoff and Moore’s 1977 study on interactional synchrony, why were the observations filmed?

A

So the observations could be independently observed (inter-observer reliability)

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

In Meltzoff and Moore’s 1977 study on interactional synchrony, what did the adult have to do, and what was found?

A

The adult displayed 1 of 3 distinct gestures, or 1 of 3 facial expressions. There was a significant association between the adult’s gesture/expression and the baby’s action, more than what would happen by chance.

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

What are 2 strengths of research into caregiver-infant interactions?

A

Well controlled:
-babies don’t know/care to be observed, reduces DC
-filmed for IOR
High reliability and validity

Research to suggest importance for interactions
-Isabella et al 1989
-high synchrony = high quality attachment
Interaction important for development

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

What are 3 weaknesses of research into caregiver-infant interactions?

A

Hard to interpret behaviour
-babies lack coordination
-small + subtle movements, could be random
Can’t be certain behaviour has special meaning

Just observing doesn’t show developmental importance
-reciprocity + interactional synchrony are just names with no purpose
Not sure if even important in development

Socially sensitive research
-suggests that some parenting choices can disadvantage children, eg: returning early to work
Can provoke guilt, reduce QOL

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

When was Schaffer and Emmerson’s research carried out?

A

1964

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

What are the 4 stages of attachment according to Schaffer and Emmerson?

A

Stage 1: asocial stage
Stage 2: indiscriminate attachment
Stage 3: specific attachment
Stage 4: multiple attachments

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

In Schaffer and Emmerson’s research, describe the sample of participants

A

60 babies mostly from working-class families in Glasgow

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

What type of study was Schaffer and Emmerson’s, and why

A

Longitudinal study- studied every month for 1 year, and again at 18 months

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

How were findings collected in Schaffer and Emmerson’s research?

A

Observations (testing stranger and separation anxiety)
Interviews with mother (protest shown by babies)

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

Describe how babies act in the asocial stage (1)

A

-similar behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects, although a slight preference for people, and particularly familiar people of whom the babies are easily comforted by
-start forming bonds as the basis for later attachment

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

Describe how babies act in the indiscriminate attachment stage (2)
When does this stage occur?

A

Approx 2-7 months
-more observably sociable
-clear preference for humans, and for familiar people
-accepts comfort from anyone
-no stranger and seperation anxiety

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

Describe how babies act in the specific attachment stage (3)
When does this stage occur?

A

Approx 7 months
-forms specific attachment with primary attachment figure, the person who interacts the most with the baby (not to do with time spent)
-this is the mother 65% of the time
-50% displayed separation and stranger anxiety

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

Describe how babies act in the multiple attachments stage (4)
When does this stage occur?

A

Shortly after stage 3- 29% formed multiple attachment within a month of forming a specific attachment
-extends attachment behaviour to people they regularly spend time with (secondary attachment)
-at 18 months, 32% had formed 5+ attachments

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

Give 2 strengths of Schaffer and Emmerson’s research

A

High external validity
-most research done by parents during ordinary activities
-babies not affected as don’t know they’re being observed
Increases credibility of study

Practical application
-plan to start daycare in stage 1/2 as problematic in stage 3
-can plan daycare
Improves QOL for parent

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

Give 3 weaknesses of Schaffer and Emmerson’s research

A

Issues with the mother as reporter (internal validity)
-not objective
-bias (SDB)
-miss/misremember info
Reduces accuracy

Low validity of measures for asocial stage
-poor coordination so signs missed
Conclusions on flawed methodology

Hard to generalise to different backgrounds
-rich may have nanny
-collectivists may have multiple attachments from earlier
Reduces explanatory power of explanation

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

According to Schaffer and Emmerson’s research, what % of fathers are the primary attachment figure?

A

3%

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

According to Schaffer and Emmerson’s research, what % of fathers are the joint primary attachment figure with the mother?

A

27%

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

According to Schaffer and Emmerson’s research, what % of children had formed an attachment with their father in 18 months, and how was this displayed?

A

75%
They protested when he walked away

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

When was the Grossmann et al study conducted and what happened in the study?

A

2002- longitudinal study where babies were studied into their teens

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

How does Grossmann et al’s research suggest that fathers do have an important role?

A

The quality of father’s play is related to the quality of adolescent attachment
This shows that fathers have a different, necessary role for play and stimulation

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

How does Grossmann et al’s research suggest that fathers do NOT have an important role?

A

The quality of the baby’s attachment to the mother (not the father) is related to adolescent attachment

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

What can happen when fathers are primary caregivers, and what is the evidence that backs this up?

A

They can adopt the motherly, emotional role
Field (1978)

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

Describe Field’s 1978 study with findings

A

He filmed 4 month old babies, and their interactions with primary mothers, primary fathers and secondary fathers
Primary fathers spent more time smiling, imitating and holding babies compared to secondary fathers
Reciprocity and interactional synchrony are processes of attachment

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

What is the strength of research into the ‘role of the father’?

A

Offers advice
- shows that fathers can be primary caregivers if that is what works out financially best for the family
Reduces influence from stereotypes and parental anxiety is reduced.

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

What are 3 weaknesses of research into the ‘role of the father’?

A

-Lack of clarity (some answer as PAF, some as SAF), so difficult to answer
-Preconceptions + stereotypes creates bias, unintentional observer bias as they ‘see’ what they expect, not reality so hard to reach conclusion
-Conflicting evidence (Grossmann yes they have a role) (McCallum & Golombok 2004 say single/lesbian parents have kids who don’t develop differently), question unanswered

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

When was Lorenz’s research completed?

A

1935

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

Describe the procedure for Lorenz’s research

A

He took a clutch of goose eggs and randomly divided them into 2 groups
One group stayed with their natural mother whilst the other group were in an incubator where the first moving object seen is Lorenz

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

What were the findings from Lorenz’s research?

A

The experimental group followed Lorenz but the control followed Mum, even when both groups mixed up

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

What is imprinting?

A

When bird species mobile from birth attach to first moving object they see

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

When must imprinting take place and why?

A

Within the critical period which is approximately 2 days
If attachment doesn’t occur here, then the infant won’t imprint so the effects are irreversible

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

What is sexual imprinting?

A

When imprinting affects later mate preference- effects are long lasting

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

What are 2 strengths of Lorenz’s research?

A

Support for imprinting
-Guilton 1966 leghorn chickens + yellow rubber glove
-Imprinted on glove
Predisposition to imprint, increases credibility

Can explain some human behaviour
-Seebach 2005 ‘baby duck syndrome’
-rejects other computer systems
Value in understanding human attachment

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

What are 2 weaknesses of Lorenz’s research?

A

Critical period questioned
-Guilton said preference, can learn to prefer chickens
-Maybe sensitive not critical
Lower validity

Can’t generalise to humans
-attachment too complex
-as it’s a 2 way process
Reduces explanatory power

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

When was Harlow’s research carried out?

A

1958

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

Describe the procedure of Harlow’s research

A

16 infant rhesus monkeys left alone with 2 ‘mothers’, one wire and one cloth
In one condition, the wire mother dispensed the milk, and in the other condition the cloh mother dispensed the milk
Measurements were taken of time spent with each mother, and the response when frightened, for example by a mechanical teddy bear

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

What were the findings from Harlow’s research?

A

All cuddled cloth and spent majority of time with it
Sought comfort from cloth when scared

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

What is the conclusion from Harlow’s research?

A

Comfort is more important in attachment than food

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

What was the critical period for monkeys in Harlow’s research and what does this mean?

A

Up to 90 days otherwise attachment is impossible and damage is irreversible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

When Harlow studied the deprived monkeys into adulthood, what were 3 of the permanent effects?

A

Socially abnormal
Sexually abnormal
Neglected / attacked children, even killing in some cases

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

How were Harlow’s deprived monkeys socially abnormal?

A

Fled when approached by other monkeys
Aggressive

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

How were Harlow’s deprived monkeys sexually abnormal?

A

Unskilled in mating

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

What are 2 strengths of Harlow’s research?

A

Practical application
-social workers can understand neglect as risk factor in development- can intervene
-helps monkeys in zoos and wild breeding programmes
Not just theoretical

Cost-benefit analysis
-Valuable info on the importance of contact comfort in social development
-Positively affects child-rearing practices
Benefits outweigh costs

53
Q

What are 2 weaknesses of Harlow’s research?

A

Hard to generalise from monkeys to human
-more complex, brain 3x bigger than chimp
-may not react same
Reduces explanatory power

Ethical issues
-long-term distress + deprivation
-can’t give consent
Not worth it

54
Q

What does the learning theory of attachment suggest?

A

That behaviour is learnt from upbringing and environment

55
Q

How is attachment formed according to classical conditioning?

A

Through association and repetition

56
Q

What type of response is the pleasure that a baby feels from food?

A

A reflex response

57
Q

According to classical conditioning, describe how attachment is formed

A

Food (UCS) –> Pleasure (UCR)
Caregiver (NS) –> No response
Food (UCS) + Caregiver (NS) –> Pleasure (UCR)
Caregiver (CS) –> Pleasure (CR)

58
Q

How is attachment formed according to operant conditioning?

A

2 way process- learning from consequences

59
Q

According to operant conditioning, describe how attachment is formed

A

Babies cry for comfort/food and gets response (feeding) which is positive reinforcement
When the adult comforts, the crying stops which is negative reinforcement for the adult

60
Q

Explain how drive reduction works in the learning theory of attachment

A

Hunger is a primary drive which is innate and biological to reduce
The caregiver provides food so the hunger drive is generalised to the caregiver
Attachment is the secondary drive due to association to satisfaction

61
Q

What is a slight strength in the learning theory of attachment?

A

Conditioning may be involved in some aspects of attachment
-food maybe not main reinforcer but the attention + responsiveness assists in forming attachment
Offers some explanation in the development of attachment

62
Q

What are 3 weaknesses of the learning theory of attachment?

A

Lack of support from animal studies
-Lorenz geese attached to first moving object, not who had food
-Harlow all monkeys spent more time with cloth no matter who had food
Other factors (comfort) important in attachment

Lack of support from human studies
-Schaffer + Emmerson found that 39% developed primary attachment to non-feeder
Food isn’t main factor in human attachment: reciprocity + interactional synchrony more important

Reductionist theory
-many done on animals (rats)
-can’t generalise to complex attachment behaviour
-also doesn’t account for biology for survival (Bowlby)
Not a full account of behaviour so explanatory power is reduced

63
Q

According to Bowlby, how is attachment viewed?

A

As crucial for survival and innately programmed. Attachment behaviour has evolved through natural selection.

64
Q

What does Bowlby’s monotropic theory suggest?

A

One’s relationship with their primary attachment figure is more important and significant in their emotional development

65
Q

Give 2 examples of social releasers

A

Big eyes, cooing

66
Q

What are social releasers?

A

Innate ‘cute’ features babies are born with which activate the innate adult attachment system to provide attention and care

67
Q

What did Bowlby’s monotropic theory propose as the sensitive period for attachment to occur?

A

6 months, but up to 2 years

68
Q

What is the internal working model? (3 parts)

A

-mental representation of relationship with primary attachment figure
-acts as template for future relationships by generating expectations
-can affect parenting behaviour

69
Q

What are 2 strengths of Bowlby’s monotropic theory?

A

Evidence for social releasers
-Brazelton asked mothers to ignore social releasers
-babies became distressed and some even motionless
Proves role of social releasers in attachment development

Evidence for internal working model
-Bailey assessed 99 teen mums with 1 year olds
-observation and interview with mother
-mum with insecure attachment to their own mother more likely to have insecure attachment with kid
Supports influence of their attachment on parenting

70
Q

What are 2 weaknesses of Bowlby’s monotropic theory?

A

The term ‘monotropy’ lacks validity
-Schaffer and Emmerson found that a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time
-first may be stronger, but not different- have the same key qualities such as emotional support
Theory incorrect about having a unique quality attachment to PAF

Controversial ethical concerns regarding monotropy
-laws of continuity + accumulated separation suggest mothers shouldn’t return to work or it will negatively affect child’s emotional development
May burden and force lifestyle choice on mothers, reducing quality of life

71
Q

Who conducted the original ‘strange situation’ procedure and in what year?

A

Ainsworth 1970

72
Q

Where did the strange situation procedure take place?

A

In a lab room play area with toys
There was either a two-way mirror or cameras used for observation

73
Q

What were the 5 behaviours tested for in the strange situation?

A
  1. Exploration + secure-base behaviour
  2. Proximity seeking
  3. Stranger anxiety
  4. Separation anxiety
  5. Reunion response
74
Q

How many stages were there in the strange situation procedure, and how long approximately did each stage last?

A

7 stages, approx 3 minutes each

75
Q

Name the 7 stages in the strange situation procedure

A
  1. Child enters room and is free to explore
  2. Stranger enters and interacts
  3. Caregiver leaves child with stranger
  4. Caregiver returns and stranger leaves
  5. Caregiver leaves child alone
  6. Stranger returns
  7. Caregiver returns, stranger leaves
76
Q

Name the 3 types of attachments according to Ainsworth

A

Type A- insecure-avoidant attachment
Type B- secure attachment
Type C- insecure-resistant attachment

77
Q

What % of British children are classified as having insecure-avoidant attachment?

A

Approximately 22%

78
Q

Describe children classified as having insecure-avoidant attachment in 3 steps

A

-explores freely with no proximity/secure-base behaviour
-little-no stranger and separation anxiety
-little effort upon reunion, may even avoid

79
Q

What % of British children are classified as having secure attachment?

A

Approximately 75%

80
Q

Describe children classified as having secure attachment in 3 steps

A

-explores happily but displays proximity seeking + secure-base behaviour
-moderate stranger and separation anxiety
-requires and accepts comfort at reunion

81
Q

What % of British children are classified as having insecure-resistant attachment?

A

3%

82
Q

Describe children classified as having insecure-resistant attachment in 3 steps

A

-seeks greater proximity so explores less
-high levels of stranger + separation anxiety
-resists comfort on reunion

83
Q

What are 2 strengths of the strange situation procedure?

A

Good inter-rater reliability
-Bick et al 2012 found 94% agreement on attachment type
Likely not subjective

Good predictive validity
-secure have better outcomes (eg: higher grades McCormick; better mental health Ward)
Procedure measures something real and meaningful in regards to development

84
Q

What are 3 weaknesses of the strange situation procedure?

A

May be western culture-bound
-Takahashi 1986 found disproportionate insecure-resistant (and 90% stopped) sue to Japanese nature where mother and baby rarely separated
Lacks external (population) validity

Lacks ecological validity
-extraneous variables eradicated for control (eg: TV, other people)
-artificial and may result in different behaviours
Can’t be generalised to real life, reducing credibility

4th attachment type
-1986 found disorganised/Type D which is a mixture of avoidant and resistant behaviours
-Ainsworth didn’t predict overlap
Although rare, challenges 3 attachment type theory

85
Q

Who studied cultural variations in attachment type and when?

A

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988

86
Q

What was Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research?

A

A meta-analysis using 32 attachment strange situations studied across 8 countries, totalling to 1990 children

87
Q

What is a meta-analysis?

A

The results from each study are weighted for it’s sample size

88
Q

What % of children were classed as insecure-avoidant attachment in Germany?

A

35%

89
Q

What % of children were classed as insecure-avoidant attachment in Japan?

A

5%

90
Q

What % of children were classed as insecure-avoidant attachment in Israel?

A

7%

91
Q

What % of children were classed as insecure-resistant attachment in Japan?

A

27%

92
Q

What % of children were classed as insecure-resistant attachment in Israel?

A

29%

93
Q

What % of children were classed as secure attachment in China?

A

50%

94
Q

How many times greater is intra-cultural variation compared to inter-cultural variation?

A

1.5x greater

95
Q

What are sub-cultures and give 2 examples

A

Group within a culture which shares dominant characteristics, but has it’s own unique characteristics
Eg: Social class, urban/rural

96
Q

What are the similarities between cultures according to van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg?

A

Secure attachment is the highest in all which feeds off of Bowlby’s idea that attachment is innate and universal

97
Q

What are the differences between cultures according to van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg?

A

Insecure-avoidant is the next most common attachment type in individualistic cultures (eg: Germany)
However, insecure-resistant is the next most common attachment type in collectivist cultures (eg: Israeli kibbutzim)

98
Q

What is a strength of van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research?

A

Most strange situations were conducted by indigenous psychologists
-eg Grossman in Germany and Takahashi in Japan
-this reduces communication issues or any negative sterotypes
Increases validity

99
Q

What are 3 weaknesses of van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research?

A

Confounding variables have large impact
-eg: social class, age, size of room
Dissimilar studies may not tell anything about cross-cultural variations

Imposed etic
-in UK, lack of affection on reunion is insecure, but this is independence in Germany
Behaviours don’t always have same meaning, pointless to compare

Reductionist
-solely blames culture for attachment variation
-ignores individual differences eg: autism
Can’t establish causation that culture alone influences attachment, so low internal validity (not measuring what it set out to measure)

100
Q

What does Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis suggest?

A

Continual care from a mother/mother-substitute is essential for normal psychological development

101
Q

What is separation?

A

When child isn’t in presence of their primary attachment figure

102
Q

What is maternal deprivation?

A

Emotional and intellectual consequences caused by lack of emotional care

103
Q

What are the emotional consequences of maternal deprivation?

A

Affectionless psychopathy (shown in Bowlby’s 44 thieves study)
This links to criminality and delinquency

104
Q

What is the intellectual consequence of maternal deprivation?

A

Delayed cognitive development characterised by an abnormally low IQ

105
Q

When did Bolwby’s 44 thieves study take place, and what were the ages of the juveniles?

A

1944
5-17 years old

106
Q

How was data collected in Bolwby’s 44 thieves study?

A

Interviews with thieves, and interviews with their parents

107
Q

What were the findings from Bowlby’s 44 thieves study?

A

14 / 44 thieves were affectionless psychopaths, and 12 of those had prolonged separation in first 2 years
Only 5 / remaining 30 had prolonged seperation
In control group, only 2 / 44 had prolonged seperation

108
Q

What was the conclusion from the 44 thieves study?

A

Deprivation causes affectionless psychopathy (which may lead to criminality)

109
Q

In relation to the maternal deprivation hypothesis, what is the critical period for normal psychological development?

A

30 months but risk up to 5 years

110
Q

What are 2 strengths of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (other than the 44 thieves study)?

A

Research to support that deprivation has long-term effects
-Levy et al 2003 shows separating baby rat from mum had permanent effect on social development (although not other types)
Supports hypothesis

Real-world application in hospitals
-before children separated and visiting discouraged or forbidden
-now parents can stay over
External validity

111
Q

What are 2 weaknesses of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation?

A

Conflicting evidence
-Lewis 1954 on larger scale of 500
-found no association between early separation and later psychopathy
Can’t take Bowlby’s own research seriously

Critical period not always true
-Czech twins experienced severe physical + emotional abuse in the critical period
-later adopted and made full recovery
Permanent damage not inevitable, perhaps sensitive

112
Q

What is institutionalisation?

A

The effects on children living in institutional setting for long, continuous periods of time with lack of emotional care

113
Q

Who completed the study called looking at the effects of institutionalisation on Romanian orphans, and when?

A

Rutter et al 2011

114
Q

Describe the procedure of Rutter et al Romanian orphan study

A

Longitudinal study (ages 4,6,11,15,22-25) following 165 Romanian orphans bad part of the English and Romanian Adoptee (ERA) study
Control group of 52 adopted not from institutions

Looking at extent to which good parenting can make up for poor early experiences.
Assessed physical, cognitive, and emotional development

115
Q

What were the findings of the Rutter et al Romanian orphan study?

A

There were differential rates of recovery dependant on the age they were adopted.
Before 6 months, IQ at 120, but after 2 years IQ is 77.
If adopted after 6 months, disinhibited attachment is common (attention seeking and clingy)

116
Q

What are 5 effects of institutionalisation?

A
  1. Disinhibited attachment (equally friendly to familiar and strangers as an adaptation to multiple caregivers)
  2. Intellectual under-functioning and low IQ
  3. Emotional development (affectionless psychopathy and tantrums)
  4. Lack of an internal working model
  5. Quasi-autism (obsessional rocking, difficulty with social constructs)
117
Q

What are 2 strengths of Romanian orphan studies?

A

Lack of confounding variables
-orphan studies have varying degrees of trauma (neglect, abuse etc)
-here there aren’t multiple factors
Can observe effects of institutionalisation, high internal validity

Real-world application
-understand effects of institutionalisation to improve care
-key workers who play central role to avoid disinhibited attachment
High practical value and external validity

118
Q

What are 2 weaknesses of Romanian orphan studies?

A

There may be a different confounding variable
-conditions so poor in terms of relationships and intellectual stimulation
-effects may represent poor institution, not good ones
Lacks external validity

Lacks data on adult development
-only looked at effects into 20s
-needs to look at lifetime of mental health and relationships
Due to nature of longitudinal study, it’s a while until the full long-term effects of institutionalisation are known

119
Q

Give the flow chart of how early attachment affects later relationships

A

Primary attachment figure -> child’s internal working model
If secure, they seek and behave in functional relationships
If insecure, they are uninvolved/emotionally distant or controlling and argumentative

120
Q

What are the 2 childhood relationships that early attachment type can influence, and what research supports this?

A

Friendships- Kerns
Bullying- Myron-Wilson and Smith

121
Q

In Kerns’ 1994 research into childhood friendships, what did he find?

A

Early attachment type did influence friendships

Secure:
S- more social interaction
C- more confident in interactions
Q- best quality friendships
P- popular
E- shows empathy

Insecure:
D- difficulties
R- reliant on teachers for
I- interaction and
S- support
E- emotional

122
Q

What did Myron-Wilson and Smith find about bullying in their 1988 longitudinal study?

A

Association between early attachment type and bullying

Secure- unlikely to be involved
Insecure avoidant- likely to be victims
Insecure resistant- likely to be bullies

123
Q

What are the 3 adulthood relationships that early attachment type can influence, and what research supports this?

A

Friendship- McCarthy 1999
Romance- McCarthy 1999 and Hazan and Shaver 1987 ‘love quiz’
Parenting- Bailey et al 2007

124
Q

Regarding McCarthy’s 1999 research into adulthood friendships and romance, briefly describe the study and the findings

A

40 women assessed for attachment type as babies and studied now- found association

Secure has best friendships and romantic relationships
Insecure avoidant struggled with intimacy
Insecure resistant struggled to maintain friendships

125
Q

What were the 3 categories in Hazan and Shaver’s 1987 ‘love quiz’?

A
  1. Most important relationship
  2. General love experiences
  3. Attachment type
126
Q

What % has each attachment type in Hazan and Shaver’s 1987 ‘love quiz’?

A

Secure- 56%
Insecure avoidant- 25%
Insecure resistant- 19%

127
Q

What were the findings of romantic relationships in Hazan and Shaver’s 1987 ‘love quiz’?

A

Secure likely to have good, long-lasting relationships
Insecure avoidant likely to show jealousy and fear of intimacy
Insecure resistant likely to show obsession and emotional fluctuations

128
Q

What is the strength of research into the influence of early attachment on later relationships?

A

Consistent supporting evidence
-eg from studies
-shows that early attachment can predict later attachment, emotional well-being and parenting
Shows advantages for secure and disadvantages for insecure

129
Q

What are 3 weaknesses of research into the influence of early attachment on later relationships?

A

Evidence against the IWM affecting later relationships
-Zimmerman 2000 assessed early attachment type and adolescent attachment and found little relationship
Not as important, reduces explanatory power

Can’t establish cause and effect
-there may be a third temperament (nature) variable influencing both
-however unethical to manipulate
Reduces credibility of research

Research methodology lacks validity
-social desirability bias in questionnaires/interviews
-retrospective memory can be easily manipulated
Reduces internal validity + credibility

A-level Psychology (11 decks)

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