Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology > Attachment > Flashcards

Attachment Flashcards

1
Q

Stages of attachment

A
  • asocial stage
  • indiscriminate attachment
  • specific attachment
  • multiple attachment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Asocial stage

A
  • infant recognises+forming bonds with carers
  • Infants behaviour towards non-human objects is similar
  • Some preference for familiar adults
  • Infants are happier in the presence of humans
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Indiscriminate attachment

A
  • reference for people rather than objects
  • accepts cuddles from any adult without sep/stranger anxiety
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Specific attachment

A
  • Anxiety towards strangers
  • Anxiety when separated from pig
  • pcg is the most responsive adult
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Multiple attachments

A
  • attachment behaviour towards multiple adults
  • within a month of having a specific attachment, 29% of infants developed secondary attachments
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Reciprocity

A

how two people interact

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

Interactional synchrony

A

Temporal coordination of micro-level social behaviour (mirroring)

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

Schaffer + Emersons stages of attachment

A

Aim: Attachment between infants + caregiver
Sample: 60 infants + mothers/CA
Procedure: Researchers visited and interviewed the mother and infant dyads every month for the first year, then again at 18 months
Dependent variables: Attachment, stranger anxiety, seperation anxiety

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

Specific attachment

A

displaying separation anxiety towards a specific caregiver

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

Multiple attachment

A

displaying separation anxiety towards multiple caregivers

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

Cupboard love: Dollard + Miller (1950)

A
  • caregiver infant attachment is learnt
  • primary care giver = provider of food
  • children learn to love whoever feeds them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Drive reduction

A

primary drive
secondary drive

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

Primary drive

A

innate biological motivator
(e.g hunger)

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

Secondary drive

A

motivator associates with reducing primary drive

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

Lorenz’s research (1952)

A
  1. randomly divided a clutch of goose eggs
  2. Half were hatched with the mother goose
  3. half were hatched in an incubator

lorenz’s eggs: followed him everywhere even when mixed together
Mother Goose eggs: followed mother everywhere

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

Lorenz’s conclusion

A
  • bird species that are mobile from birth attach to + follow the first moving object they see
  • `There’s a critical period when imprinting needs to take place ( few hours post hatching)
  • No imprinting = no attachment to a mother figure
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Harlows research (AIM)

A

To Investigate how animals form attachment using rhesus monkeys

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

Harlows procedure

A

Tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother
He reared 16 baby monkeys with 2 wire model ‘mothers’
One condition milk was dispensed by the plain wire mother
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
19
Q

Harlows findings

A

Baby monkeys cuddled the cloth-covered mother rather than the plain-wire mother + found comfort from the cloth one when frightened
(e.g noisy mechanical teddy bear)
Showed that ‘contact comfort’ was more important than food when it came to attachment behaviour

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

John Bowlby: Monotropic Theory

A

Attachment is an innate system that provides survival advantages, keeping young animals safe by staying with their caregivers

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

Evolutionary theory
(A Snap Chat Makes Images)

A

Adaptive
Social releasers
Critical period
Monotropy
Internal working model

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

Monotropy

A

1 PCG

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

Law of continuity

A

the more constant and predictable a childs care, the better the quality of their attachment

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

Law of accumulated separation

A

the effects of every separation from the mother add up
“safest dose is therefore zero”

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

Social releasers

A
  • ‘cute’ behaviours that encourage attention from adults
  • Aims to activate adult social interaction and promote attachment
  • PCG and baby are ‘hard-wired’ to become attached; its a reciprocal process
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Critical period

A
  • Infant attachment suites is active for the first 6 months of life
  • If an attachment isn’t formed during the sensitive period, a child will struggle to form attachment later on
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Sensitive period

A

-Infant attachment system is active for the first 6 months

Bowlby edited this as infants attachment systems is maximally ‘sensitive’ for the first 6 months -> can extend to 2 years

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

Strengths of Schaffer and Emerson

A

P: good external validity

Exa: most observations were made by parents during ordinary activities + reported to the researchers

Ex: This might have distracts the babies or made them feel more anxious

l: Therefore its highly likely that the ppts behaved naturally while observed

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

Limitation of Schaffer + Emerson

A

P: issues with asking mothers to be the observers

Exa: They might not have notices when their baby was showing signs of anxiety

Ex: Means they might have been biases in terms of they notices and what they reported

L: This means that even if babies behaved naturally their behaviour may not have been accurately recorded

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

Strength of Lorenz’s research

A

P: existence of support for the concept of imprinting

Exa: study by Regolin and Vallortigara supports Lorenz’s ideas of imprinting. chicks were exposed to simple shape combinations that moved such as a trainee/rectangle. A range of shape combinations were them moved in front of them and they followed the original most closely

exp: Supports the view that young animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object present in the critical window of development,

L; same as what was predicted by Lorenz

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

Limitation of Lorenz’s

A

P: Ability to generalise findings from birds to humans

Exa: In mammals attachment is a two-way process, so it’s not just the young who become attached to their mothers but also the mothers show attachment to their young.

exp: Means mammalian attachment system is different and more complex than in birds

l: probs not appropriate to generalise Lorenz idea to humans

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

Internal working model

A
  • child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their PCG
  • this effects their future relationships + attachments with their own children
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

limitation for bowlby’s theory (monotropy)

A

P: monotropy lacks validity

Ex: Schaffer+Emerson found that although most babies attach to one person at first, many formed multiple attachments at the same time.

Ep: this means that although the first attachment appears to have a strong influence on later behaviour, does not mean that attachments to family members will not provide the same key qualities such as emotional support or a safe base

l: therefore bowl by may be incorrect that there is a unique quality and importance to the Childs primary attachment

34
Q

strength of bowlbys theory
(social releasers)

A

p: there is evidence supporting the role of SR

ex: Brazelton et al (1975) observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers. Researchers then instructed the babies’ primary attachment figures to ignore their babies’ social releasers

ep: This means that babies who were shown to be normally responsive became distressed and some curled up and lay motionless

l: this shows the role of social releasers in emotional development and suggests that they are important in the process of attachment development

35
Q

Strength for bowlby’s theory
(IWM)

A

p: Support for the internal working model

ex: Bailey et at (2007) assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their one year old babies. The researchers measured the mothers’ attachment to their own primary attachment figures and assessed the attachment quality of the babies

Ep: This shows that mothers with poor attachment to their own primary attachment figures were more likely to have poorly attached babies

l: Supports bowlbys ideas that mothers’ ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their internal working models

36
Q

Limitation of bowlbys theory
(IWM)

A

p: There are other important influences on social development

ex: Some pyschologists believe that genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviour in both babies and adults

ep: These different can impact their parenting ability

l: Therefore Bowlby may have overstates the importance of the IWM in social behaviour and parenting at the expense of other factors

37
Q

Ainsworth’s strange situation

A
  • controlled oberservation designed to measure attachment security
    infants are assessed on their response to playing in an unfamiliar room, being left alone, left with a stringer and being reunited with a caregiver
  • lab room with a two way mirror so psychologists can see in but pets cant see out (covert)
  • To measure attachment they used behavioural categories
38
Q

Measure attachment

A
  • proximity seeking (staying close to caregiver)
  • Seperation Anxiety (Protest at separation)
  • Reunion behaviour (How the child responds to caregiver after separation)
  • Stranger anxiety ( Anxiety when a stranger approaches)
  • Exploration (child is confident to explore, using caregiver as a point of contact where they feel safe)
39
Q

Insecure avoidant

A
  • exploring freely but not seeking proximity or show secure-base behaviour
  • little to no seperation/stranger anxiety
  • dont require comfort when reunited with caregiver
40
Q

secure

A
  • exploring happily but regularly go back to caregiver
  • moderate seperation? stranger anxiety
  • Accept contact from caregivers during reunion
41
Q

insecure resistant

A
  • seeking greater proximity + exploring less
  • huge amounts of seperation/starnger anxiety
  • resist comfort when reunited with caregiver
42
Q

strength of strange situtation

A

p: Outcome predicts a no of aspects of the baby’s later development

ex: Research shows that babies that are secure have better outcome than others in childhood + adulthood including better achievement in school.

ep: This means that securely attached babies have better mental health in adulthood and babies with insecure - resistant attachment have the worst outcomes

l : therefore ss measures something real + meaningful in a baby’s development

43
Q

limitation of ss

A

p: measures something important associates with later development but not all pyschologists believe that something is attachment

ex: Kagan (1982) suggested that genetically- influenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment behaviour in the ss and later development

l; means that’s ss may not measure attachment

44
Q

cultural variations

A

differences in the norms and values that exist between people in different groups.

45
Q

Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research

A

conducted a study to look at the proportions of secure, insecure - avoidant and insecure - resistant = attachments across a range of countries to asses cultural variation.

46
Q

Ljzendoorn and kroonenbergs procedure

A
  • located 32 studies of attachment where the Strange situation had been used to investigate the proportions of babies with different attachment types
  • conducted in 8 countries - 15 in US , overall yielded results for 1990 children
  • data was meta-analysed meaning results of the studies were combined + analysed together, weighting each study for its sample size
47
Q

Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg findings

A
  • secure attachment most common in all countries
    (proportion varied from 75% in Britain - 50% in china)
  • individualist cultures rates of insecure - resistant attachment were simile to Ainsworth’s original sample (all under 14%) compared to collectivist samples from china, Japan, Israel where rates were above 25%
  • variations between studies within the same country were 150% greater than those between countries
    (e.g. US, one study found only 46% securely attached compared to one sample as high as 90%)
48
Q

Italian study

A

Simonelli et al (2014) conducted a study in Italy to see whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types still matches those found in pervious studies

49
Q

Italian study procedure

A

assessed 76 babies aged 12months using SS

50
Q

Italian study findings

A
  • 50% were secure with 36% insecure - avoidant
    this is a lower rate of secure attachment and higher rate of insecure - avoidant attachment that has been found in other studies
  • Suggests this is because increasing no of mothers of very young children work long hours + use professional childcare
  • findings suggest that patterns of attachment types are not static but vary in line with cultural change.
51
Q

Korean study

A

conducted a study to compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies

52
Q

Korean study procedure

A

SS used to assess 87 babies

53
Q

Korean study findings

A
  • overall proportions of insecure + secure babies were similar to those in most countries however most of those classified as insecurely attached were resistant and only one baby was avoidant
  • this distribution is similar to the distribution of attachment types found in Japan and Japan and Korea have the similar child - rearing styles
54
Q

strength of cultural variations

A

A strength is that most studies were conducted by indigenous pyschologists

e.g. Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg inkleed research by a German team (Grossman et al 1981) and Takahashi (1986) who is Japanese

this means that many potential problems in cross-cultural research can be avoided, such as researchers misunderstandings of the language used by ppts

therefore there is a high chance that researchers + ppts communicated successfully - enhancing validity of data collected

55
Q

weakness of cultural variations

A

a limitation of cross-cultural research including meta - analyses of patterns of attachment types is the impact of confounding variables on findings

e.g. size of the room and the availability of interesting toys there - babies might appear to explore more in studies conducted in small rooms with toys then a big bare room. Less visible proximity seeking because of room size might make a child more likely to be classifies as avoidant

this means that looking at attachment behaviour in different non-matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross - cultural patterns of attachment.

56
Q

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

A

emotional + intellectual consequences o separation between a child and their mother

bowls propped that continuous care from a mother is essential for moral psychological development, and that prolonged operation from mother causes damage to emotional + intellectual development

57
Q

seperation

A

child is not with their primary attachment figure

58
Q

deprivation

A

child is deprived from emotional care

59
Q

critical period

A

first 2 and a half years

  • if child is separated from mother and so deprived from emotional care during critical period then bowl by believed psychological damage was inevitable
60
Q

intellectual development

A

Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care during critical period they would experience delayed intellectual development

e.g. Goldfarb (1947) found lower iq in children who remained in institutions to those who were fostered and had higher emotional care

61
Q

emotional development

A

bowl by identified affectionless psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others. This prevents a person developing relationships and associated with criminality

62
Q

Bowlbys research

A

Bowlbys (1944) 44 thieves study examined the link between affection less psychopathy and maternal deprivation

63
Q

Bowlbys procedure

A

44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
all ‘thieves’ interviewed for signs of affection less psychopathy such as a lack of guilt about their actions

their families also interviewed to establish whether the ‘thieves’ had prolonged early separations from their mothers

sample compared to a control group of 44 non - criminal but emotionally disturbed young people

64
Q

bowlbys findings

A

14 of 44 thieves described as affection less pyschopaths and 12 of these experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first 2 years of their lives
5 of the remaining 30 ‘thieves’ experienced separations
2 ppts out of the 44 experienced long separations

bowl by concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy

65
Q

limitation of maternal deprivation

A
  • poor quality of evidence its based on
  • 44 thieves study flawed as bowlby himself carried out both family interviews + assessments for affectionless psychopathy - open to bias as he knew in advance which teens he expected to show sign of psychopathy

e.g. bowl by influenced by findings of goldfarbs research on the development of deprived children in wartime orphanages - this study had problems of confounding variables as the children in goldfarbs study had experienced trauma as well as prolonged sep from pcg

therefore bowlbys original sources of maternal deprivation has serious flaws and would not be taken serious today

66
Q

Romanian orphan studies

A

children placed in care because their parents cant look after them

67
Q

institutionalisation

A

a place like a hospital/orphanage where people live for a long time - little emotional care provided

68
Q

Rutter et al’s research (PROCEDURE)

A

Rutter + colleagues followed a group of 165 romainan orphans as part of the ERA study

aim was to investigate the extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions.

physical, cognitive, emotional development assessed at 4,6,11,15,22-25 yrs old.

group of 52 children from Uk adopted the same time have served as a control group

69
Q

Rutter et al’s research (FINDINGS)

A

half the adoptees showed signs of delayed intellectual development and majority were undernourished.

mean IQ of children adopted before 6 months was 102, compared with 86 for those adopted between 6m-2y and 77 for those adopted after 2 years

children adopted after they were 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment. symptoms include attention-seeking and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards adults both familiar/unfamiliar

in contrast children adopted before 6months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment

70
Q

Zeenah et al’s research (PROCEDURE)

A

Zeenah conducted the BEI project assessing attachment in 95 Romanian children aged 12-31 months who spent their lives in institutional care

they were compared rot a control group of 50 children who never lived in an institution

attachment type measure using SS

carers asked about unusual social behaviour like clingy

71
Q

Zeeah et al Findings

A

74% of control group were classes as securely attached in the SS

19% of the institutional group were securely attached

in contrast the disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children as opposed to less than 20% of the controls

72
Q

disinhibited attachment

A

children who spent whole lives in an institution - show signs of disinhibited attachment being equally friendly to familiar people/strangers - rare case most children in 2nd year show stranger anxiety

73
Q

intellectual disability

A

in Rutters study most children showed signs of intellectual disability however most od those adopted before 6 months caught up with control group by 4

damage to intellectual development as a result of institutionalisation can be recovered provided adoption takes place before age of 6 months - age attachments form

74
Q

strength of roman orphan studies

A

p: application to improve conditions for children growing up outside their family home

e.g. children’s homes now avoid having large no of caregivers for each child

exp: institutional care is now seen as an undesirable option for looked-after children. Considerable effort is made to accommodate such children in foster care or have them adopted instead

l: means that children in institutional care have a chance to develop normal attachments + disinhibited attachment is avoided

75
Q

limitation of roman orphan studies

A

P: lack of data on adult development

ex: latest data from the ERA study looked at children in their early to mid 20s

this means that we dont currently have data to answer some of the most interesting research questions about the long term effects of early institutional care

l: means that It will be some time before we know more completely what the long-term effects are for the Romania orphans.

76
Q

influence of early attachment on later relationships
IWM

A

our mental representations we have of our relationship to our primary attachment figure

77
Q

relationships in childhood

A

Attachment type is associated with quality of peer relationships in childhood
securely attached babied tend to go to form best quality childhood friendships whereas insecure attached babies have friendship difficulties

Wilson + Smith assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using standard questionnaires in 196 children aged 7-11 from London

secure children - unlikely to be involved in bullying
insecure avoidant - most likely to be victims
insecure-resistant - likely to be bullies

78
Q

relationships in adulthood

A

IWM affects romantic + parental relationships with own children

Hazan + Shaver conducted a classic study of the association between attachment and adult relationships

Procedure : analysed 620 replies to a ‘Love quiz’ printed in a American newspaper

quiz had 3 sections
1. assessed respondents’ current important relationship
2. assessed general love experiences such as no of partners
3. assessed attachment type by asking respondents to choose which 3 statements described their feelings

79
Q

Hazan + shaver findings

A

Findings+ conclusion

56% of respondents indentified securely attached
25% insecure avoidant
19% insecure - resistant

those with secure attachments - longer lasting somatic experiences
those with avoidant respondents - jealousy / fear of intimacy

suggest that patrons of attachment behaviour are selected in romantic relationships

80
Q
A

Psychology (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions