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

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

What are innate actions?

A

Things all babies do

Pre-programmed behaviours

Internal (biological)

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

What is reciprocity?

A

Description of how two people interact

Turn-taking

Sensitive responsieveness

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

What is turn-taking?

A

Interaction flows both ways between adult and infant

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

What is sensitive responsiveness?

A

Adult attends sensitively to infant’s communications

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

What is interaction synchrony?

A

Adults and babies respond in time to sustain communication

Imitation

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

What is imitation?

A

Infant mimics/copies the adult’s behaviour

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

What was Meltzoff and Moore’s experiment?

A

When a face was made at a baby, the baby made the same face back

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

What was the still face experiment?

A

Asked mother to interact with baby and baby’s reaction was positive

When baby had still face, baby showed signs of distress

Shows importance of interacting with baby

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

What is imprinting?

A

When a baby recognises another object/person as a parent

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

What was Lorenz’s procedure?

A

Randomly divided clutch of goose eggs

One half hatched with mother goose in natural environment

Other half hatched in a incubator where the first thing they saw was Lorenz

Mixed goslings together to see who they would follow

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

What were the results of Lorenz’s experiment?

A

Incubator group followed Lorenz

Control group followed mother

Identified critical period in first few hours after hatching where imprinting takes place

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

What is a critical period?

A

Span of time in which a certain behaviour must be achieved and if it’s not completed during this time, the ability is lost forever

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

How did Lorenz test critical period?

A

Varied time between birth and seeing moving object

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

What is extrapolation?

A

Applying findings from animal studies to humans

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

What are the differences between humans and animals?

A

Human attachments more complex

Not based on sight

No imprinting

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

What are the similarities between humans animals?

A

Both have critical period

Benefit of introducing skin on skin contact

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

Strength of Lorenz - imprinting

A

Regolin and Vallortigara

Exposed chicks to simple shape-combinations that moved

When shown range of moving shapes, chicks followed these in preference to other shapes

Suggests young animals born with innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object

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

What was Harlow’s procedure?

A

Separated monkeys from real mother

Put monkey in cage with cloth-covered “mother” and food “mother”

Observed who monkey spent the most time with

Observed which “mother” the monkey went to when frightened

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

What were the results of Harlow’s experiment?

A

Cuddled cloth “mother” instead of food “mother”

22 hours with comfort
2 hours sporadically with food

When frightened, monkey went to cloth-covered mother

Monkeys who were deprived of real mothers were more aggressive, less sociable and less skilled in mating

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

Limitation of Harlow - ethical issues

A

Baby monkeys immediately taken away from mothers after birth

Missed 90 day critical period

Cannot replicate study so cannot validate the original experiment

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

Strength of Harlow - practical application

A

Zoo keeping

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

Limitation of animal studies - extrapolation

A

Problem with generalisability from findings of animals to humans

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

What was Bowlby’s monotropic theory?

A

Bowlby believes that baby have one main attachment figure known as primary attachment figure, which is typically mothers (or female figure)

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

What are social releases?

A

Any behaviour a baby shows to get an adult’s attention

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

What is a baby’s critical period?

A

Time in which a baby must make an attachment, otherwise they will never make an attachment

0-2/2.5 years

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

What is an internal working model?

A

From this monotropic attachment, baby forms mental model of what relationships are meant to be like, which they use for future relationships

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

Strength of Bowlby’s monotropic theory - research support

A

Bailey et al

Interviewed 99 mothers

Mothers had the same attachment style with their mothers as with their children

Supports IWM as states relationship created with mother’s monotropic figure would be template for them when they are a parent

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

Limitation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory - evidence of multiple attachments

A

Van Ijzendoorn

Babies in collectivist cultures form multiple attachments straight away rather than one specific attachment

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

Strength of Bowlby’s monotropic theory - evidence for social releases

A

Tronick

Babies distressed when mothers no longer responded to their actions

Social releases vital for forming relationships

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

Limitation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory - Czech twins

A

“Discovered” at age 7

Locked up and isolated from outside world and abused by stepmother since birth

Had no language ability

After loving care from two sisters, by age 14, twins showed normal social and intellectual functioning and were able to form meaningful attachments

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

Counterpoint Bowlby’s monotropic theory - Czech twins

A

Made each other primary attachment

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

Limitation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory - socially sensitive

A

Fathers don’t play important in child’s life

Lead to fathers being treated unfairly in custody cases

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

What is the learning theory of attachment?

A

Classical conditioning

Before conditioning:
- UCS (food) –> UCR (happy baby)
- NS (caregiver) –> NR (no response)

During conditioning:
- NS (caregiver) + UCS (food) –> UCR (happy baby)

After conditioning:
- CS (caregiver) –> CR (happy baby)

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

Limitation of learning theory - animal studies

A

Lorenz’s geese - imprinted on first moving object they saw

Harlow’s monkeys - attached to soft surrogate in preference to wire one with milk

Imprinting/attachment didn’t develop as result of feeding

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

Limitation of learning theory - counter evidence

A

Schaffer and Emerson
- many babies main attachment wasn’t person who fed them

Isabella et al
- interactional synchrony (unrelated to feeding) predicted attachment quality

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

Strength of learning theory - some elements of conditioning may be involved

A

Unlikely that associated with food

But could be associated with warmth and comfort

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

What is institutionalisation?

A

Being raised within an institute (hospital, orphanage) without any family members

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

What was the procedure of Rutter’s Romanian orphans study?

A

165 Romanian orphans adopted to Britain

Physical, cognitive and emotional development was tested at 4, 6, 11, 15

Compared to 52 British children who were adopted at same tim

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

What were the findings of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study?

A

1/2 orphans showed intellectual development when came to UK

Average IQ for UK = 100

Adopted before 6 months = mean IQ of 102
Adopted between 6 months-2 years = mean IQ to 86
Adopted after 2 years = mean IQ of 77

Differences continued to be apparent at 16

Disinhibited attachment apparent in children adopted after 6 months but rare in children adopted before 6 months

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

What is disinhibited attachment?

A

Clinginess

Attention-seeking

Indiscriminate affection to strangers

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

Strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphans - practical application

A

Improving institutions

One or two key workers per child

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

Strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphans - research support

A

Bucharest early intervention project

Used Strange Situation to assess attached in 95 Romanian children aged 12-31 months who’d spent most of their lives in institutional care

Compared to control group of 50 children who’d never experienced institutional care

19% of institutionalised group securely attached (74% of control)

44% of institutionalised group had disinhibited attached (20% of control)

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

Limitation of Rutter’s Romanian orphans - situational variables

A

Romanian orphans orphanage was unique situation

Lacked intellectual stimulation, poor standards of care and poor relationships

Not generalisable

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

Strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphans - extraneous variables

A

Previous research had focused on orphans who’d experienced loss or trauma

Meant researcher couldn’t be sure if it was institution or trauma which caused attachment behaviour (lacks internal validity)

Romanian orphans hadn’t had any trauma

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

Who were the researchers that developed the Strange Situation?

A

Ainsworth and Bell

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

What does proximity seeking/secure base?

A

How close babies stay to caregiver/exploration

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

What is stranger anxiety?

A

How the baby reacts to a stranger

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

What is separation anxiety?

A

How the baby reacts when caregiver leaves

49
Q

What is response of union?

A

How the baby reacts when caregiver returns

50
Q

What was the method of Strange Situation?

A

Proximity seeking = caregiver and baby in same room

Stranger anxiety = added stranger

Separation anxiety = caregiver leaves

Reunion behaviour = caregiver returns

Measured by watching reaction

51
Q

What were the three types of attachment?

A

Secure

Insecure avoidant

Insecure resistant

52
Q

How does a baby with a secure attachment react to each of the Strange Situation tests?

A

Secure base/proximity seeking –> = / wandered but came back

Separation anxiety –> = / moderate

Stranger anxiety –> = / moderate

Reunion behaviour –> wants comfort

53
Q

How does a baby with a insecure avoidant attachment react to each of the Strange Situation tests?

A

Secure base/proximity seeking –> + / wandered and didn’t come back

Separation anxiety –> - / low

Stranger anxiety –> - / low

Reunion behaviour –> avoids comfort

54
Q

How does a baby with a insecure resistant attachment react to each of the Strange Situation tests?

A

Secure base/proximity seeking –> - / clingy

Separation anxiety –> + / high

Stranger anxiety –> + / high

Reunion behaviour –> resists comfort

55
Q

Why would a child be secure?

A

Parents sensitive to needs

56
Q

Why would a child be insecure avoidant?

A

Parents avoid and ignore their needs

57
Q

Why would a child be insecure resistant?

A

Parents are inconsistent in responding to needs

58
Q

What were the results of the Strange Situation?

A

Majority of children securely attached = 60-75%

Insecure avoidant next most common = 25%

Normally 10% or lower are insecure resistant

59
Q

Limitation of Strange Situation - missing attachment type

A

Main and Solomon

Missed the disorganised attachment type

Mix between ISA and ISR

Disorganised attachment children self-soothe by rocking

60
Q

Limitation of Strange Situation - cultural bias

A

Caregivers and a child’s upbringing depends on culture

Takahashi
- repeated Strange Situation on Japanese babies
- most ISR because of upbringing

61
Q

Strength of Strange Situation - inter-rater reliability

A

High inter-rater reliability

When two or more observers collect the same information and give same results

Bick
- 94% of trials observers agreed on attachment classification

62
Q

Strength of Strange Situation - good predictive validity

A

McCormick
- secure babies typically have greater success at school

ISR associated with worse outcome
- bullying (Kokkinos)
- adult mental health wards (Ward)

63
Q

Who investigated cultural variations in attachment?

A

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg

64
Q

What was Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s procedure?

A

Looked at proportions of S, ISA and ISR attachments across countries

Found 32 STUDIES of attachment where Strange Situation used (conducted in 8 COUNTRIES, 15 IN USA)

1990 children in studies

Data META-ANALYSED and results combined and weighted for sample size

65
Q

What were the results of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study?

A

Secure attachment most common

Individualistic cultures = ISR under 14%

Collectivist cultures = ISR above 25% and ISA reduced

Variations between results of studies WITHIN same country 150% GREATER than BETWEEN countries

66
Q

Which country had the highest percentage of secure attachment?

A

75% Britain

67
Q

Which country had the lowest percentage of secure attachment?

A

50% China

68
Q

Which country had the highest percentage of insecure-resistant attachment?

A

30% Israel

69
Q

Which country had the lowest percentage of insecure-resistant attachment?

A

3% Britain

70
Q

Which country had the highest percentage of insecure-avoidant attachment?

A

Germany

71
Q

Which country had the lowest percentage of insecure-avoidant attachment?

A

Japan

72
Q

Strength of Strange Situation

A

Covert - reduced demand characteristics

Controlled - reduced extraneous variables

Non-participant - easier to take notes

73
Q

Limitations of Strange Situation

A

Missing attachment types

74
Q

Limitation of cultural variations in attachment - imposed etic

A

Used Strange Situation to assess attachment types which was created by an American researcher to assess American children

May not be applicable to assess other cultures

In Germany, lack of pleasure on reunion is classed as independence rather than avoidance

Need to adapt procedure to assess cultural difference

75
Q

Strength of cultural variations in attachment - use of indigenous researchers

A

Indigenous researchers - those from same cultural background as participants

Grossmann - Germans working with German participants

Aids communication between researchers and participants

Helps prevent misunderstandings

76
Q

How does having a secure relationship with the caregiver as a baby affect future relationships?

A

Secure friendships

Secure romantic relationships

77
Q

What study is used to test adult relationships?

A

Love Quiz

78
Q

What was the procedure of the love quiz?

A

Analysed 620 Love Quiz responses printed in an American newspaper

First section assessed responses current/most important relationship

Second section assess general life experiences

79
Q

What were the results of the Love Quiz study?

A

56% = securely attached

25% = insecure-avoidant

19% = insecure attachment

80
Q

What are the romantic relationships like someone who is securely attachment?

A

Long-term

Few

Very trusting

Very open with emotions

81
Q

What are the romantic relationships like someone who has an insecure-avoidant attachment?

A

Short-term

Few

Trusting

Very independent

Doesn’t share emotions

82
Q

What are the romantic relationships like someone who has an insecure-resistant attachment?

A

Short-term

Many

Not trusting

Very open with emotions

83
Q

Limitation of Love Quiz - self-report

A

Demand characteristics

Social desirability (however anonymity reduces this)

Restricted answers

84
Q

Strength of influence of early attachment of later relationships - research support

A

Bailey et al

Tested 99 mothers and their relationships with their own mothers

Type of attachment mirrored in mother’s relationship with their own children

85
Q

Limitation of influence of early attachment of later relationships - association not causation

A

Zimmerman

Rejected IWM

Found little similarity in infant attachment type and adolescent attachment type

86
Q

What study was used to test childhood attachment?

A

Smith et al

87
Q

What was the childhood study?

A

Peer relationships, bullying

Secure = make friendships easily, trusting

ISA = few friendships, doesn’t try and make friends, bullying victims

ISR = bullies, desperate for friendships, not trusting

88
Q

What is maternal deprivation?

A

Lack of mother care

89
Q

What was Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation?

A

All children needed continuous care from their mother to have “normal deprivation”

If separated from their mothers, would be serious damage to child’s emotional and intellectual development

90
Q

What was a disruption to a maternal relationship result in?

A

Abnormal development

91
Q

What are the consequences of maternal deprivation?

A

No attachment in your critical period

Poor IWM - poor friendships/romantic relationships

Lack of continuity - disruption in attachment

Low IQ

Emotional problems - affectionless psychopath

92
Q

What was the procedure of Bowlby’s 44 thieves study?

A

44 criminal teenagers

Interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy, characterised by lack of affection, guilt and empathy

Families interviewed to establish any prolonged separation from mothers

Control group = non-criminally, emotionally-disturbed gang of people

93
Q

What were the results of Bowlby’s 44 thieves study?

A

14/44 thieves were affectionless psychopaths

12/14 had experienced prolonged separation from mothers in first 2 years of life

Prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy

94
Q

Limitation of 44 thieves - procedure

A

Researcher bias - Bowlby could affect what answers were given to get what he wanted

Interview - social desirability bias

95
Q

Limitation of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation - social sensitivity/economy

A

Blamed mothers for everything

Mothers should take 2 years off (negatively impacts economy)

Insensitive to fathers (don’t play a role)

Pressure on mothers

96
Q

Strength of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation - practical application

A

Patient-family accommodation

Family stay near/in the hospital to be able to visit children

97
Q

What was the procedure of Schaffer and Emerson’s study?

A

60 babies from Glasgow working class families

Tested by psychologists in their own home

Tested every month until first year and at 18 months

Asked mothers questions about separation and stranger anxiety

98
Q

What were the results of Schaffer and Emerson’s study?

A

Four main stages of attachment

Change based upon child’s reaction to separation and stranger anxiety levels

99
Q

What are the four stages of attachment?

A

Asocial stage

Indiscriminate attachment

Specific attachment

Multiple attachments

100
Q

When is the asocial stage?

A

First few weeks

101
Q

What is the asocial stage?

A

Behaviour towards and inanimate objects similar (no preference)

102
Q

When is the indiscriminate attachment stage?

A

2-7 months

103
Q

What is the indiscriminate attachment stage?

A

No separation or stranger anxiety

Preference for humans but attachment is indiscriminate

104
Q

When is the specific attachment stage?

A

From around 7 months to a year

105
Q

What is the specific attachment stage?

A

Stranger and separation from anxiety when separated from primary attachment figure

106
Q

When is the multiple attachments stage?

A

By one year

107
Q

What is the multiple attachments stage?

A

29% of babies had formed secondary attachment within a month of primary attachment

Multiple secondary attachments

108
Q

Limitation of Schaffer and Emerson - self-report design

A

Demand characteristics

Social desirability bias

Mothers could lie

109
Q

Limitation of Schaffer and Emerson - sample

A

Limited sample size

Only working class

Only Glasgow

Can’t generalise

110
Q

Strength of Schaffer and Emerson - procedure

A

Good external/ecological validity

Babies were in their own home

Mothers observed babies

111
Q

AO3 stages of attachment - Van Ijzendoorn

A

Strength = multiple attachments
Limitation = stages of attachment

Babies have multiple attachments as their first stage

Collectivist cultures share responsibility of baby with all family

More opportunity to develop multiple attachments

112
Q

What are stereotypical beliefs about the role of the father?

A

Secondary care givers
- spend most time out of household
- so less time with children

Role of protection and providing
- providing food
- shelter
- money

For cognitive development and discipline
- play
- stimulation

When primary caregiver, fathers adopt emotional role

113
Q

How does sex of the baby affect the role of the father?

A

Fathers more involved if child is male as see themselves as role model

114
Q

How does culture affect the role of the father?

A

South Africa
- fathers secondary caregivers
- bread winners and providers

Tribe in Papa New Guinea
- women as hunter-gathers

Other cultures have fathers as more significant attachment

115
Q

Limitation of role of the father - legal implications

A

Mothers favoured other fathers

Not all fathers have parent responsibility

116
Q

Can be primary caregiver - Schaffer and Emerson

A

Additional attachments developed in the proceeding months followed 4th stage

31% of infants displaying 5+ attachments by 8 months

3% had fathers as primary caregivers

Not parent that spends most time, one whose MOST SENSITIVE TO NEEDS

117
Q

Can be primary caregiver - Grossman

A

Longitudinal study of 44 families

Compared role of fathers’ and mothers’ contribution to children’s attachment experiences at 6, 10, 16 years

Fathers’ play style linked to fathers’ own IWM

Play sensitivity better predictor of child’s long-term attachment representation than early measures of attachment type that infant had with father

118
Q

Can be primary caregiver - Field

A

Compared behaviours of primary caretaker mothers with primary and secondary caretaker fathers

Face-to-face interactions analysed from video footage with 4 month old infants

Fathers engaged more in gameplaying and held infants less

Primary caretaker fathers engaged in significantly more smiling, imitative grimaces and imitative vocalisations than secondary caretaker fathers and these were comparable with mothers’ behaviour

119
Q

Can be primary caregiver - Brown et al

A

Investigated father involvement, paternal sensitivity and father-child attachment security at 13 months and 3 years

Involvement and sensitivity influenced father-child attachment security at age 3

Involvement greater predictor of secure attachment when fathers were rated less sensitive

Gender of caregiver not crucial in predicting attachment types/quality, it’s extent of caregiver involvement

Psychology (11 decks)

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