attachment

Question 1

care giver interactions - reciprocity

Answer 1

. care giver/infant interactions is reciprocal in that b. cg/baby respond to each others signals
. each elicit a response from the other, ex cg. responds to baby’s smile and elicits a response

Question 2

care giver interactions - alert phases

Answer 2

. babies signal when ready for interaction
. 2/3 of time mother picks up on this, varies according to skill
. from 3 months, interaction increasingly freq

Question 3

care giver interactions - active involvement

Answer 3

. both cg./baby can initiate interactions and take turns
. brazelton et al describes this as a dance

Question 4

care giver interactions - interactional synchrony

Answer 4

. cg/baby can reflect each others actions and emotions in a co-ordinated way
. synchrony begins, moore et al; studied babies two weeks old
.filmed and labelled their response
. found babies mirrored cg gestures and expressions more than they thought
. isabella et al; observed 30 mothers and their babies, found high levels of synchrony associated with high quality mother baby attachment

Question 5

filmed observations - cg interactions evaluation

Answer 5

strength
. cg infant interactions usually filmed in lab so distracting activity can be controlled
. observations can be recorded and analysed later so unlikely so miss key behaviours
. bec it’s filmed more observers can analyse and record data, establishing inter rated reliability
. babies don’t know being observed so no change in beh.
. therefore data collected in research should have good validity and reliability

Question 6

difficulty observing babies - cg interactions evaluation

Answer 6

limitation
. hard to interpret baby’s beh.
. babies lack co-ordination and r immobile
. ex, cannot know whether movement random or triggered by cg
. therefore cannot be certain that beh. seen in cg interactions have special meaning

Question 7

developmental importance - cg interactions evaluation

Answer 7

. observing beh. does not tell us developmental importance
. feldman; ideas like synchrony give names to patterns of beh. observed
. can be reliably observed but still may not be useful in understanding child development
. therefore we cannot be certain that reciprocity/synchrony r import. for child development from observational research alone

Question 8

schaffers stages of attachment - stage 1; asocial stage

Answer 8

1 baby’s 1st few weeks observable beh towards humans/objects similar
2 tend to show preference for familiar people/+re easily comforted by them
3 baby is forming bonds w cert people

Question 9

schaffers stages of attachment - stage 2; indiscriminate attachment

Answer 9

1 fr 2-7 months babies display +re obvious social beh
2 show clear preference being w others than objects, recog familiar people
3 accept cuddles fr anyone
4 no separation/stranger anxiety

Question 10

schaffers stages of attachment - stage 3; specific attachment

Answer 10

1 fr 7 months, maj babies start display attachment towards 1 partic pers
2 show stranger/separation anxiety
3 baby forms specific attachment to primary attachment fig, who is pers that interacts/responds to signals most w the best skill
4 65% cases is mother

Question 11

schaffers stages of attachment - stage 4; multiple attachments

Answer 11

1 shortly after primary attachment beh extends to multiple attachments w others who they spend time w - secondary attachments
2 schaffer/emerson observed 29% of children formed secondary attachment w/n month of forming primary attachment
3 by one yr maj babies developed multiple attachments

Question 12

good external validity - schaffers stages evaluation

Answer 12

strength
1 most obvs made me parents during ordinary activities
2 alternative meth of researcher observing may have distanced babies
3 therefore means highly likely ppts behaved naturally while observed

Question 13

good external validity counterpoint - schaffer stages evaluation

Answer 13

limitation
1 mothers unlikely to be objective
2 may have been biased in what they report
3 therefore means even if babies beh naturally the beh not accurately recorded

Question 14

poor evidence for asocial stage - schaffers stages evaluation

Answer 14

limitation
1 if babies less than 2 months felt anxiety in everyday situs it might be displayed in subtle ways
2 made it difficult for mothers to observe and report back
3 therefore means babies may acc be quite social b bec of flawed meth appear asocial

Question 15

real world application - schaffers stages evaluation

Answer 15

strength
1 practical application in day care
2 in asocial/indiscriminate attach stages day care is straightforward as babies comforted by anyone
3 starting daycare in specific attach stage is harder w +re problems
4 therefore parents use of daycare can be planned using schaffers stages

Question 16

attachment to fathers - the role of the father

Answer 16

evidence sugg father much less like to be 1 attach compare to moths
schaffer/emerson; fou maj bab 1st attach to moth at 7 months, in 3% cases was fath
27% cases father was joint 1st w moth
how, 75% babies formed attach w father by 18mon wh was determined by bab protesting when fath walked away

Question 17

distinctive role for fathers - the role of the father

Answer 17

grossman et al; longitudinal study, bab attach studied until teens and researcher looked at both parents beh/relationship to quality of bab later attach to oths
quality of babys attach w mothers b not faths related to attach in adolescence
sugg attach to fath less import than moths
how. G fou quality of fathers play w babies was related to quality of adolescent attach
sugg fath have diff role fr moths wh is to do w play/stimulation and less w emotional development

Question 18

fathers as primary attachment figures - the role of the father

Answer 18

evidence sugg when fath take on pcg role they can adopt emotional role +re typically associated w moth
tiffany field; filmed 4 moth bab in face to face interaction w pcg moths, scg faths, pcg faths
pcg faths spent +re time smiling/holding babs than scg faths
shows faths potential to be +re emotion focused pcg and can prov responsiveness required for close emotional attach b perhaps this only expressed when given pcg role

Question 19

evaluation - confusion over qs; role of the father

Answer 19

limitation
lack clarity over qs asked
before saw faths behave diff 2 moths and have distinct role
latter fou they can take ‘maternal role’
therefore makes difficult 2 offer simple answer as to ‘role of father’ bec depends on what specific role discussed

Question 20

evaluation - conflicting evidence; role of the father

Answer 20

limitation
findings vary according to methodology used
longitudinal studies sugg faths as secondary attach have important/distinct role in child’s develop
how. if faths role crucial then single moth/lesbian par fami would be diff to those in heterosexual fami
studies show those childr don’t develop diff fr childr in 2 par heterosexual fami
therefore challenges whether faths have distinctive role

Question 21

evaluation - conflicting evid counterpoint ; role of the father

Answer 21

cou be that par in single moth/lesbian fami adapt to accommodate role played by faths
therefore means clear that fath has distinct role when present b famis can adopt 2 not having fath

Question 22

evaluation - real world application ; role of the father

Answer 22

research into role can be used for advice 2 par
ex. heterosexual couples can be advised that fath can be pcg
lesbian/single moth informed not having fath doesn’t aff child developm
therefore means parental anxiety about role of father can be reduced

Question 23

animal studies of attachment - lorenzs research

Answer 23

imprinting; 1st observed when he was child and neighbour gave him newly hatched duckling that followed him
procedure; divided goose eggs, half hatched w. moth, half w him
findings; incubator g followed lorenz, cg. followed moth
when 2 grps moved both still followed 1st pers seen
critical period; few hrs after hatching, if no imprinting w/n time childr don’t attach to moth fig
sexual imprinting; birds that’s imprinted on humans later showed courtship beh to them

Question 24

animals studies of attachment - harlows research

Answer 24

observed newborn monkeys kept alone in cage died b w something soft +re like survived
procedure; reared 16 baby monkeys w 2 wire model moths
one cond milk dispensed by plain wire another cond by cloth moth
findings; monkeys cuddled cloth moth in pref 2 plain moth and sought comfort fr cloth moth regardless wh dispensed milk when frightened
showed ‘contact comfort’ +re import 2 monkeys than food when came 2 attach beh

Question 25

animal studies of attachment - maternally deprived monkeys as adults

Answer 25

harlow follow monkeys deprived of ‘real moth’ into adulthood 2 see if maternal depriv had perm eff
fou plain wire monkeys most dysfunctional
b cloth wired monkeys also did not develop normal social beh
deprived monkeys +re aggr/less sociable, bred less oft not skilled at mating and neglected their young even killing them

Question 26

animal studies of attach - critical period for normal development

Answer 26

harlow; moth must be introduced to baby w/n 90 days otherwise attach impossible

Question 27

evaluation - research support; lorenz research

Answer 27

strength
regolin et al; study, exposed chicks to simple shape combo that moved , then range of shapes moved and they followed one most close to og
supports view young animals born w innate mechanism 2 imprint on moving object present in critical window of developm

Question 28

evaluation - generalisability to humans; lorenz research

Answer 28

limitation
mammalian attach +re complex than birds
ex. 4 humans it’s two way process as moths also show emotional attach
sugg not appropriate 2 generalise lorenz ideas 2 humans

Question 29

evaluation - real world value ; harlows research

Answer 29

has helped social workers and clinical psychologists understand how lack of bonding experience may be risk in child development and prev poor outcomes
also now understand import of attach fig 4 baby monkeys in zoos
therefore sugg value of harlows research not just theoretical b also practical

Question 30

evaluation - generalisability to humans ; harlows research

Answer 30

limitation
human beh/brain +re complex than monkeys
therefore sugg may not be approp 2 generalise harlows findings 2 humans

Question 31

explanations of attachment: learning theory - classical conditioning

Answer 31

in attach food acts as US, pleasure fr food = UR
cg starts as NS, when cg provides food overtime becomes assoc w food
NS becomes CS producing CR
learning theorists; CR is love and attach formed

Question 32

explanations of attachment: learning theory - operant conditioning

Answer 32

learning fr consequences of beh
if beh produces pleasant conseq then beh like to be repeated
beh is reinforced
babies crying leads to response fr cg
as long as cg gives right response crying is reinforced
baby directs crying 4 comfort towards cg who resp w comforting, ‘social suppressor’ beh
reinforcement is 2 way process as cg received -ve reinforce bec crying stops

Question 33

explanations of attachment: learning theory - attachment as secondary drive

Answer 33

draws on concept of drive reduction
hunger thought as prim drive - innate biological motivator
motivation 2 eat 2 reduce hunger drive
sears et al; sugg cg prov food so prim hunger drive generalised to them
so attach secondary drive as learning assoc b/w cg/prim drive satisfaction first

Question 34

evaluation - counter evidence fr animal studies ; learning theory attach

Answer 34

limitation
lack of support fr studies conducted on animals
ex. lorenz geese imprinted on first moving object they saw regardless of wheth assoc w food
harlows monkeys display attach beh towards soft surrogate moth regardless of who gave milk
therefore shows oth factors are import formation of attach

Question 35

evaluation - counter evidence from studies on humans; learning theory

Answer 35

limitation
lack support fr studies of human babies
ex schaffer/emerson; fou babies tend to form main attach w moth regardless if she usually feeds them
isabella et al; high lev of interactions synchrony predicted quality of attach
therefore sugg food not main factor in human attach

Question 36

evaluation - some conditioning may be involved; learning theory

Answer 36

strength
elements of conditioning cou involve in attach
ex. baby may associate feeling warm/comfortable w presence of partic adult wh is main influence of baby’s choice of main attach fig
therefore sugg learning theory may still be useful in understanding development of attachments

Question 37

explanations of attachment; bowlbys theory - monotropy

Answer 37

emphasis child’s attach to 1 partic cg
child’s attach to this pers +re import/diff
B called pers ‘moth’ b doesn’t have to be biol
+re time spent the better
1 law of continuity; +re constant/predictable childcare = better quality of attach
2 law of accumulated sep; eff of every sep fr moth add up, zero dose = best dose

Question 38

explanations of attachment; bowlbys theory - social releases and critical period

Answer 38

bab born w set innate ‘cute’ beh ie. cooing
that activate adult social interaction wh make adult attach 2 baby recip proc
interplay b/w adult/cg gradually builds relationship b/w early weeks
critical period around 6 mon, if attach does not form at this time then harder to form later

Question 39

explanations of attachment; bowlbys theory - internal working model

Answer 39

mental rep of relationship w prim attach
child’s 1st experience loving relationship w cg tend to form expect that all relation loving and brings qualities 2 future relationship
if child’s 1st relationship is poor treat then tend form poor relations
IWM affects child’s later ability to be parent
peop tend base parenting beh on own exp of being parented

Question 40

evaluation - validity of monotropy challenged; bowlbys theory

Answer 40

limitation
lacks validity, schaffer/emerson; fou most babs attach 1 pers at first, signif min formed multiple attach at same time
1st attach simply stronger not diff in quality fr child’s oth attach
oth attach prov all same key qual
therefore bowlby may incorrect that there’s unique qual/import to child’s prim attach

Question 41

evaluation - support for social releasers; bowlbys theory

Answer 41

strength
brazelton et al; obsv bab trigger interaction w adults using SRs
when bab SRs ign they became distressed/motionless
therefore sugg SRs import proc of attach develop

Question 42

evaluation - support for internal working model; bowlbys theory

Answer 42

strength
bailey et al; assessed relationship in 99 moth/1yr old
meas moth attach w own pcg and quality of babies attach
fou those w poor attach to pcg +re like have poor attach w babies
therefore supp bowlby, moth ability form attach influe by IWM

Question 43

evaluation - counterpoint of IWM; bowlbys theory

Answer 43

there r oth social development influences
ex. genetic differences in anx/social ability aff social beh in bab/adults

Question 44

evaluation - feminist concerns; bowlbys theory

Answer 44

limitation
laws of cont/accum sep; sugg moths who work may -vely aff child emotional developm
belief sets up moth 2 take blame 4 anything that goes wrong

Question 45

ainsworth strange situ - procedure

Answer 45

controlled obvs 2 meas security of attach baby displays
proc has 7 eps each 3 mins long in unfamiliar playroom
1 baby encouraged to explore
2 stranger talks to cg/appr baby
3 cg leaves baby/stranger tg
4 cg returns/stranger leaves
5 cg leaves baby alone
6 stranger returns
7 cg returns/reunited w baby

Question 46

strange situ - findings/ty of attachment

Answer 46

secure attachment B; expl happily and reg go 2 cg, show moderate sep distress/stranger anx, accepts comfort in reunion stg, 60-75% brit babs SA
insecure avoidant attachm A; expl freely, x prox seeking, no react to cg leaving/strang anx, no react to reunion, 20-25% babs IA
insecure resistant attachm C; seek greater prox/expl less, high lev strang anx/sep dist b resist comfort in reunion, 3% bab IR

Question 47

evaluation - good predictive validity; strange situ

Answer 47

predict nu aspect of baby’s later developm
large res shows type B babs better outcomes in life, better achieve in skl and less bullying involv, bett mental health
IR have worst outcomes
TF: sugg SS meas something real/meaningful in baby’s development

Question 48

evaluation - counterpoint for predictive validity; strange situ

Answer 48

not all psychs believe SS meas attach
ex. jerome account for variation in attach beh in SS fr influe anx lev
means SS not meas attach

Question 49

evaluation - good relatability; strange situ

Answer 49

strength
bick et al; tested inter rated reliability for SS for team trained in obvs and fou agreement in attach ty in 94% cases
high lev reliability bec proc done in contr cond, beh easy to obsv
TF: confi that attach ty assessed by SS x depend on subjective judgments

Question 50

evaluation - cultural bound; strange situ

Answer 50

limitation
x valid meas attach in diff cultural context
SS developed in US/brit
bab have diff exp in diff cultu wh may aff resp
ex. japanese study, bab display high lev sep anx so disproportionate nu classed as IR b takahashi sugg anx resp bec nurturing in japan res in moth/bab sep rarely
TF: shows v diffic 2 know what SS meas outside eur/US

Question 51

cultural variation in attachment - procedure

Answer 51

van ijzendoom et al; locat 32 stud of attachm using ss to investigate babs
conducted in 8 countries, 15 in us and yielded 1990 res fr childr
data meta analysed

Question 52

cultural variation in attachment - findings

Answer 52

all count SA most common, how prop varied fr 75% in brit babs to 50% in china
individualist cultures - rates IR attach simi 2 ains og study
collectivist samples - rates above 25%
variation b/w res w/n same count acc 150% greater than b/w count

Question 53

cultural variation in attachment - other studies of cultural variations

Answer 53

italian study simonelli et al; res assessed 76 bab w ss, fou 50% SA and 36% IA so lower rate SA b higher rate IA
sugg bec many moths w you childr work long hrs and use childcare
sugg patterns attach ty x static b vary in line w cultural change
korean study jin et al; assess 87 babs, fou overall prop I/S babs simi 2 those in most count w most babs sec how those class I r resist/w only 1 avoid
distrib similar to japan since simi child rearing styles

Question 54

cultural variation in attachment - conclusions

Answer 54

SA norm in most cult supp bowlby that attach is innate/universal
res shows cult prac have influe on attach ty

Question 55

evaluation - indigenous researchers; cultural variations of attachment

Answer 55

strength
most stud conduct by indigenous psychs, those fr same cultural background
this res can avoid prob of cross cultural res ie communic/bias bec of nations stereoty of anoth
TF: res/ppts communic successfully wh enhances validity of data

Question 56

evaluation - counterpoint for indigenous researchers; cultural variations of attachment

Answer 56

not true for all res
ex. morelli et al; outsiders fr america in studies
data may affect by difficulties
TF: some count data might be affected by bias/diffic in cross cult communic

Question 57

evaluation - confounding variables; cultural variations in attachment

Answer 57

limit
CVs on findings
stud conduct in diff count x usually matched 4 methodology when compared in reviews/meta analysis
samp charac ie. poverty, social class, age ppts in diff count
environ variab; might diff b/w stud wh confound res
ex. size room, toys available
babs r less visible for prox seek bec of room size they might be classed as IA
TF: attach beh in diff non matched studies conducted in diff count may x tell us anything about cross cult patterns of attach

Question 58

evaluation - imposed etic; cultural variations in attachment

Answer 58

limit
occurs when we assume idea/tech that works for one cult context will work in anoth
ex. reunion stg; in brit/us lack of affect = avoidant b in germany = independence
TF: means beh meas by ss may x have same meanings in diff cult contexts/compar across cult is meaningless

Question 59

bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation - separation vs deprivation

Answer 59

separation; child not in presence of paf wh only is problem when they beco deprived of emotional care
brief sep esp w sub cg who can prov emot care x signif for develop
extended sep can lead to deprivation wh causes harm

Question 60

bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation - the critical period

Answer 60

if child sep fr moth durng critical period w no sub care and deprived of her emot care for extended duration then psychological damage is inevitable
also there’s a continuing risk up to 5 yrs old

Question 61

bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation - effects on development

Answer 61

1 intellectual development : deprived emot care during CP leads to delayed ID characterised by abnormally low IQ
Goldfarb : adoption studies, fou lower IQ in childr who remained in instit compar to those who were fostered and had higher standard of emot care
2 emotional development : emot depriv can lead to affectionless psychopathy wh is inability to feel guilt/strong emot towards oths, they lack remorse for their actions

Question 62

bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation - bowlbys research

Answer 62

44 thieves study examined link b/w affectionless psychopathy/maternal depriv
procedure : teen crim accused of thieving were interviewed for AP thru lack of guilt for victim/action. interviewed families to see if there was any prolonged early sep from moth, grp compar to cg on 44 non crim b emot disturbed
findings : fou 14/44 described as AP and 12/14 had prolonged early sep fr moth in 1st 2 yrs of life
only 2/44 in cg exp long sep, conclu prolonged early sep/depriv caused AP

Question 63

evaluation - flawed evidence ; bowlbys maternal depriv

Answer 63

limit
44 thieves study
bowlby conducted the interv himself and knew wh ones were more likely to show AP so study may have bias
influenced by goldfarbs study

Question 64

evaluation - counterpoint for flawed evidence ; bowlby maternal deprivation

Answer 64

limit
levy et al showed sep baby rate fr their moth for even just a day and permanent eff on their social developm b not oth aspects of development
TF: altho bowlby evid flawed there r oth sources of evid 2 supp

Question 65

evaluation - deprivation and privation ; bowlby maternal deprivation

Answer 65

rutter; 2 ty early -ve experiences
deprivation = forming prim attach and then being sep after attachment develop
privation = not forming prim attach in 1st place (ex instit care)
the severe long term damage bowlby associ w depriv is acc res of priv
many childr in thief study has disrupted early lives so x form strong attachm
TF: bowlby may overestimated seriousness of eff of depriv in child’s development

Question 66

evaluation - critical vs sensitive periods ; bowlby maternal deprivation

Answer 66

limit
jarmila; reported czech twins case
twins experi v severe physical/emot abuse fr 18 months up to 7 yrs
they received excellent care by their teens/recovered fully
TF: means lasting harm x inevitable even in cases of severe priv so CP better seen as sensitive period

Question 67

romanian orphan studies institutionalisation - rutter et als research

Answer 67

proc; followed 165 romanian orphans, they were adopted by uk family
physic/emot/cog develop assess at 4,6,11,15 22-25 yrs and compared to 52 cg childr also adopted b fr uk
findings; when 1st arrived childr showed delayed intellectual development and maj severely undernourished
mean IQ of childr adopt b4 6 months = 102, 6mon-2yrs = 86, after 2yrs = 77, these differences remained at 16 w adhd +re common in 15, 22-25yrs
adopted after 6 mon showed signs disinhibited attach ie. attention seeking, clingy, social beh indiscriminate
childr adopt b4 6mon rarely displayed disinhibited attach

Question 68

romanian orphan studied institutionalisation - zeanah et als research

Answer 68

conducted BEI project
assessed attach in 95 romanian orphans aged 12-31 mon who spent most life in instit care
compared to 50 childr in cg who never lived in instit care
attach meas by SS
findings 74% cg = SA b 19% instit grp = SA
44% instit grp = disinhibited attach b less than 20% cg = disinhibited attach

Question 69

romanian orphan studies institutionalisation - effects of institutionalisation

Answer 69

disinhibited attach; oft childr who spent early life in instit had highly unusual beh, res of adaptation 2 living w multiple caregivers during sensitive period
intellectual disability; most childr showed this sign when 1st arrived how. most adopted b4 6mon caught up w cg by 4yrs
emot develop fr institutionalisation can be recovered if adopted b4 6mon

Question 70

evaluation - real world application; romanian orphans

Answer 70

strength
improve conditions 4 childr in care
study improved psychological understanding of eff of early instit care/ how to prevent worse eff
led to improvem in care sys ie. avoid multiple cg and only have 2
considerable effort made to accommodate childr in foster/adoption
TF: childr in instit have chance to develop normal attach/avoid DA

Question 71

evaluation - fewe confounding variables ; romanian orphans

Answer 71

strength
usually many childr fr orphanages experi varying lev of trauma b childr fr romanian orphanages had been handed in by loving parents who couldn’t afford to look after them
TF: less likely confounded by oth -ve early experiences increasing validity

Question 72

evaluation - counterpoint to fewer confounding variables ; romanian orphans

Answer 72

limit
diff confounding variables ie. quality of instit v poor w childr receiving little intellectual stimulation/comfort
TF: means harmful eff seen may be res of poor instit care than instit care itself

Question 73

evaluation - lack of adult data ; romanian orphans

Answer 73

limit
latest data fr ERA childr in early 2 mid 20s
no data on qs about long term eff ie. ment health and form/maintaining adult relationships
takes long time to gather as study longitudinal
TF: means longtime b4 we know +re about long term eff and maybe later adopted childr may catch up

Question 74

influence of early attachment on later relationships - internal working model

Answer 74

IWM acts as template for future childhood/adult relationships
quality of baby’s 1st attach crucial bec template will aff future relationships
if baby’s first exp is loving w reliable attach fig then they will assume this is how relation. r and wikl seek functional relationships
childr w bad experi will strugg 2 form relationship/may x behave approp

Question 75

influence of early attachment on later relationships - relationships in childhood

Answer 75

SA babs form best quality friendships, IA babs have friend difficulties
myron wilson et al; assessed attach ty/bullying involvement using qus in 196 childr 7-11yrs fr london
SA childr x involv in bullying, IA most like victims and IR most like bullies

Question 76

influence of early attachment on later relationships - relationships in adulthood

Answer 76

IWM aff romantic/parental relationships
mccarthy et al; studied 40 adult wom who were assessed when babs 2 establish early attach ty
SA has best adult friend/romantic relation
IR had partic prob maint friend, IA strugg w intimacy in romantic relation
IWM aff child’s parenting
bailey et al; investig attach of 99 moth to their babs and 2 own moth
moth-bab attach assess w SS and their attach to own moth assessed w adult attach intervention
fou maj wom had same attach classific b 2 babs/moths

Question 77

evaluation - research support; attachment and later relationships

Answer 77

strength
reviews of evid conclu early attach consistently predicts later attach, emot well-being, attach 2 own childr
fou disorganised attach strongly assoc w later mental health disorder
TF: SA babies convert advantage 4 future develop while disorganised attach seriously disadvantages childr

Question 78

evaluation - counterpoint to research support ; attachment and later relationships

Answer 78

limit
not all evid supp existence of close links b/w early attach/later develop
ex study; longitudinal study followed 43 indiv fr 1 yrs
at 16yrs attach assessed suing adult intervention attach
showed no evid of continuity
TF: means x clear 2 what extent quality of early attach pred later develop there may be oth import factors

Question 79

evaluation - validity issues w retrospective studies ; attachment and later relationships

Answer 79

limit
most research x longit and just asks adult ppts qs about their relationships w parents/ identifies attachment ty fr this
2 validity problems; relies on honesty of ppt and v hard 2 know whether assess early attach or adult attach
TF: means meas early attach in most stud confounded so meaningless

Question 80

evaluation - confounding variables; attachment and later relationships

Answer 80

limit
McCarthys study lacks validity
confounding variables ie. parenting style may influe attach quality/later develop
genetic influe of personality may also be influenced on both factors
TF: means we can never be sure it’s early attach or oth factors influencing development