Attachment Flashcards
1
Q
What is attachment?
A
A close two-way emotional bond between two individuals, in which each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security
2
Q
What is interactional synchrony?
A
- The temporal coordination of micro-level social behaviour
- It takes place when the caregiver and infant interact in such a way that their actions and emotions mirror each other
3
Q
What is reciprocity?
A
- Caregiver-infant interaction is reciprocal in that both caregiver and baby respond respond to each other’s signals and each elicits a response from the other
4
Q
Which 3 psychologists conducted research into interactional synchrony?
A
- Meltzoff and Moore discovered that infants aged 2-3 weeks displayed a tendency to mimic adults’ facial expressions and hand movements - mimicry is an innate ability that helps in the formation of attachment
- Isabella et al found that infants with secure attachments demonstrated interactional synchrony during the first year of life
5
Q
Who conducted research into reciprocity and what did they find?
A
- Feldman & Eidelman
- Research shows that mothers typically pick up on and respond to their baby’s alertness around 2/3 of the time
6
Q
What are the strengths of research into caregiver-infant interaction? (A03)
A
- Filmed lab observations: other activity that may distract a baby can be controlled + having filmed interactions means more than one observer can record data and establish inter-rater reliability + babies don’t know their being observed - reliable data produced
- Practical applications in parenting skills training: Crotwell et al found that a 10min parent-child interaction therapy improved interactional synchrony in 20 low-income mothers & their pre-school children
7
Q
What are the weaknesses of research into caregiver-infant interactions? (A03)
A
- Difficult to interpret a baby’s behaviour: young babies lack coordination + movements observed are subtle changes in expression - much of their bodies are almost immobile e.g if a hand twitch is random or triggered by caregiver -> can’t be certain that behaviours seen have a special meaning
- Observing a behaviour doesn’t tell us its developmental importance: Feldman pointed out that ideas like interactional synchrony give names to patterns of observable behaviour but are robust phenomena (can be reliably observed) that don’t tell us the purpose of these behaviours
8
Q
What research did Crotwell et al conduct into interactional synchrony?
A
After 10 mins of interactional therapy, levels of interactional synchrony between mothers and their pre-school children improved
9
Q
What are Schaffer’s 4 stages of development?
A
- Asocial stage (first few weeks): observable behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects are similar + easily comforted by familiar faces
- Indiscriminate attachment (2-7months): clear preference for humans over inanimate objects but still can be comforted by anyone
- Specific attachment (7-11months): child becomes attached to primary attachment figure (one who offers the most interaction + responds to signals) - mother in 65% of cases
- Multiple attachments (11months+): after showing attachment behaviour to one person, they extend this behaviour to multiple attachments with whom they regularly spend time → secondary attachments
10
Q
What are the strengths of Schaffer’s stages of attachment? (A03)
A
- Good external validity: most observations were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to researchers rather than record observations (could have distracted babies or made them anxious) → natural behaviour
- Counter: mothers are unlikley to be objective observers - may have been biased in terms of what they noticed/reported
- Real-world application: in day care -> straightforward during asocial & indiscriminate stages (comforted by any anyone) but their research tells us starting daycare, especially with an unfamilar adult, can be problematic during specifc stage -> parents use of day care can be planned using Schaffer’s stages
- Generalisability: Schaffer& Emerson based their stage account on a large-scale study with some good design features
11
Q
What are the weaknesses of Schaffer’s stages of attachment? (A03)
A
- Poor evidence for asocial stage: low validity used to assess attachment in this stage - young babies have poor co-ordination & are fairly immobile → if babies less than two months displayed anxiety in everyday situations, it would be subtle + hard for mothers to observe & report back signs of anxiety → social babies may appear asocial due to flawed methods
- Lacks population validity: based on observational study 60 babies from Glasgow, all from 1960s working-class families - attachment behaviours may differ by culture, social class, or historical context
- Culture bias: based on Western norms e.g. monotropy - in collectivist cultures, forming multiple attachments from an early age is the norm (Ijzendoorn)
12
Q
What research did Schaffer and Emerson conduct into the stages of attachment?
A
- Conducted a longitudinal observation of 60 working-class babies from Glasgow
- Visited babies & mothers in their homes monthly for first year then at 18 months
Findings: - Separation anxiety occured in most babies by 25-32 weeks, with stranger anxiety starting one month later
- In 18-month follow up, 87% developed multiple attachments
- Strongest attachment was to those mothers who had consistent caregiver-infant interactions
13
Q
What animal study research did Lorenz carry out into attachment?
A
- Lorenz studied the effect of imprinting in geese
- He divided a group of goose eggs → half were hatched with mother goose in their natural environment, the other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz
- Once the chicks had hatched, the geese that he had incubated followed him around similarly to how the geese followed their natural mother around
14
Q
What is a critical period and what were the critical periods in Harlow and Lorenz’s experiments?
A
- Critical period: an attachment has to take place within a certain time scale, otherwise, it will never happen for the infant
- Lorenz (geese): first few hours of hatching - 13-16hrs
- Harlow (monkeys): 90 days
15
Q
What is imprinting?
A
Where bird species that are mobile from birth attach to and follow the first moving object they see
16
Q
What animal study research did Harlow carry out into attachment?
A
- Harlow performed a study with 16 monkeys investigating mother-infant attachment
- They were presented with two mothers (conditions) - one made out of wire mesh, one made from cloth & both dispensed food
- They preferred the cloth-covered mother regardless of which dispensed milk → more to the mother child bond than nourishment (contact comfort)
17
Q
What is a strength of Lorenz’s animal studies on attachment? (A03)
A
- Research support for imprinting: Regolin & Vallortigara found that when chicks were exposed to a range of shape combinations that moved (a triangle with a rectangle in front), they followed the original most closely - young animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint
18
Q
What is a weakness of Lorenz’s animal studies on attachment? (A03)
A
- Can’t generalise findings from birds to humans: mammalian attachment system is more complex - the mammalian attachment is a two-way process where the mother also shows an emotional attachment to their young - not appropriate to generalise to humans
19
Q
What is a strength of Harlow’s animal studies on attachment? (A03)
A
- Real-world value: helped clinical psychologists understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in child development allowing them to intervene to prevent poor outcomes (Howe) → we now undersatnd importance of attachment for baby monkeys in zoos → theoretical & practical value
20
Q
What is a weakness of Harlow’s animal studies on attachment? (A03)
A
- Can’t generalise findings from monkeys to humans: all mammals share some common attachment behaviours but human brain & behaviour is more complex than that of monkeys
21
Q
What is cupboard love?
A
The infant attaches to the caregiver who provides the food
22
Q
What are the primary and secondary drives?
A
Primary: Hunger
Secondary: caregiver
23
Q
How does classical conditioning (learning theory) attempt to explain the development of attachments?
A
- Through classical conditioning, the baby forms an association between the mother (NS) and the feeling of the pleasure of being fed (innate UCS)
- The baby feels comforted by food but each time it’s fed the mother is present (associates)
- Before long the mother becomes a CS and also causes pleasure for the child
- The baby feels happier when the mother is fed→ beginning of the formation of an attachment
24
Q
How does operant conditioning (learning theory) attempt to explain the development of attachments?
A
- The child carries out an action such as crying→ triggers a response e.g. mother coming to comfort or feed the baby
- The more this happens, the more the action is reinforced→ The reward for crying encourages the baby to cry more to receive more rewards like food
- Also negatively reinforces the mother through the removal of incessant crying
25
Q
What research did Dollard and Miller conduct into the learning theory of attachment?
A
- Pointed to the fact that babies are fed by their main carer 2000 times in their first year
- Gives opportunity for the carer to become associated with the removal of the unpleasant feeling hunger→ supports attachments being formed by operant conditioning
26
Q
What research did Schaffer and Emerson conduct into the learning theory of attachment?
A
- Found in 39% of cases, the mother, and usually the main carer, were not the infant’s main attachment figure
27
Q
What are the strengths of the learning theory of attachment? (A03)
A
- Some conditioning may be involved: elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of attachment - seems unlikely that association with food plays a main role – but conditioning may still play a role e.g. a baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with their main attachment figure -> could influence choice of main attachment figure - useful in understanding attachment development
28
Q
What are the weaknesses of the learning theory of attachment? (A03)
A
- Counter-evidence from animal studies: Lorenz’s geese imprinted before they were fed + maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them + Harlow’s monkeys attached to a soft surrogate ‘mother’ in preference to a wire one that dispensed milk -> attachment doesn’t develop as a result of feeding - factors other than association with food are important in attachment formation
- Counter-evidence from human studies: Schaffer and Emerson – many babies developed a primary attachment to the biological mother despite carers doing most of the feeding + Isabella found that high levels of interactional synchrony predicted quality of attachment -> both unrelated to feeding
29
Q
What research did research did Schaffer and Emerson conduct into the role of the father?
A
- Found that in only 3% of cases, the father was the first sole object of attachment and in 27% the father was the joint first object of attachment
- Also found that 75% of babies studies by Schaffer and Emerson formed an attachment with their father by 18 months
30
Q
What research did Grossmann et al conduct into the role of the father?
A
- Carried out a longitudinal study where babies’ attachment were studied until they were teens
- Quality of baby’s attachment with mother related to adolescent attachment not fathers→ less important
- Also found that quality of father’s play with babies related to quality of adolescent attachments → Fathers play a different role
31
Q
What research did Field conduct into the role of the father as primary attachment figure?
A
- Filmed 4-month-old babies in face-to-face interaction with their primary caregiver mother, secondary caregiver fathers, and primary caregiver fathers
- Primary caregiver fathers spent more time smiling, imitating, and holding babies than secondary caregiver fathers → all parts of international synchrony & reciprocity → attachment formation (Isabella et al)
- Fathers have the potential to be more emotion-focused primary attachment figures
32
Q
What are the strengths of research into the role of the father? (A03)
A
- Real-world application: can be used to offer advice to parents → mothers may feel pressured to stay at home due to stereotypical views and fathers to focus on work not parenting → Research into role of father can offer reassuring advice to parents e.g. lesbian/single-mother families can be reassured that having a father mot around won’t afffect development - reduces parent anxiety around role of father
33
Q
What are the weaknesses of research into role of the father? (A03)
A
- Confusion over research questions: lack of clarity over question being asked (What is the role of the father)→ some researchers want to understand the role of fathers as secondary caregivers, others as primary - fathers have a distinct role vs can take on a maternal role - difficult to offer a simple answer
- Conflicting evidence: findings vary according to the methodology used → longitudinal studies (Grossmann et al) suggested fathers as secondary attachment figures have an important role in adolescent attachements - play & stimulation) but studies by Golombok & McCallum show that children with lesbian parents don’t develop any differently -> undermines reliability of research in this area
- Social & Cultural Bias
Much of the research has been conducted in Western, individualistic cultures, where fathers are more likely to be involved in caregiving.
In collectivist cultures, caregiving may be more communal, and fathers’ roles might differ. This limits the cross-cultural validity of findings - Lacks temporal validity - Schaffer & Emerson (1964) -> father was first sole object of attachment in 3% of cases
34
Q
What were the two pairs of psychologists who found conflicting evidence on the role of the father?
A
- Grossmann et al: carried out longitudinal studies which suggested fathers as secondary attachment figures have an important and distinct role in child development
- Studies by McCallum & Golombok found that children with lesbian parents don’t develop differently from children in two-parent heterosexual families
35
Q
What is Bowlby’s theory of attachment and what acronym summarises the theory?
A
- Evolutionary theory of attachment which states that attachments are innate
A- Adaptive
S- Social releasers
C- Critical period
M- Monotropy
I- Internal working model
36
Q
What is the adaptive element of Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
A
- Attachments give us an adaptive advantage making us more likely to survive
- If an infant has an attachment to a caregiver they are kept safe, warm and fed
- The drive for human beings to provide care is innate due to things that make you want to say aww
37
Q
What is the social releasers element of Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
A
- Suggests babies are born with a set of innate cute behaviours - can be physical or behavioural
- These behaviours encourage the attention of adults and activate the adult attachment system
- Causes adult to feel love towards infant - triggers an innate predisposition to become attached
38
Q
What is the critical period element of Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
A
- Proposes a timeframe where infant attachment system is most active & sensitive to attachment formation - birth to 6 months
- Sensitive - can reach up to 2 years
- Attachment not formed in this time can have irreversible consequences for social, emotional & intellectual development
39
Q
What is the monotropy element of Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
(Define law of continuity and law of accumulated separation)
A
- Emphasises the idea of 1 caregiver who is more important than any other
- Law of continuity: the more constant and predictable the child’s care is, the better the quality of attachment
- Law of accumulated separation: every bit of time away from the mother adds up and the safest amount of time spent away from mother is zero
40
Q
What is the internal working model element of Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
A
- Children form a mental representation of their relationship with their primary cargeiver - serves as a schema of what all relationships are like
- Poor attachment=low expectations, poor behaviours
- Also affects infant’s ability to be a parent in the future as you tend to replicate your first attachment
41
Q
What are the strengths of Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
A
- Evidence supporting role of social releasers: Brazelton et al observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers then instructed their primary attachment figures to ignore the babies’ social releasers - previously responsive babies became depressed and curled up -> lack of reciprocity - important in attachment development process
- Research support for IWM: Bailey et al assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers with 1-year-old babies on quality of their attachment to their own mothers - mothers with poor attachment to their own parents were more likely to have poorly attached babies
42
Q
What are the weaknesses of Bowlby’s monotropic theory? (A03)
A
- Mixed evidence for monotropy: Schaffer and Emerson found that although most babies did attach to one person first, they also found that a significant minority were able to form multiple attachments at the same time
- Feminist concerns: laws of continuity & accumulated separation suggest mothers who work may negatively affect child’s development - Burman highlighted that this allows mothers to take blame for anything that goes wrong in child’s future - gives people an excuse to restrict a mother’s activites
- Correlational: Bowlby’s studies show a link between early attachment and later outcomes, but correlation ≠ causation - can’t rule out other variables like temperament, family environment
- Neglect of cultural variations: theory is based on studies conducted primarily in Western, individualistic cultures, where caregiving responsibilities often focus on the mother - in collectivist cultures, caregiving is more communal, & infants may form multiple equally important attachments -> reduces the cross-cultural validity
43
Q
What research did Brazelton et al conduct into Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
A
- Observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers
- He then instructed their primary attachment figures to ignore the babies’ social releasers
- Previously responsive babies became depressed and curled up -> lack of reciprocity
44
Q
What research did Bailey et al conduct into Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
A
- Assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers with 1-year-old babies on quality of their attachment to their own mothers
- Mothers who classified poor attachment to their own parents were more likely to have children classified as poor according to observations
45
Q
What is secure attachment?
What % of British babies are secure?
A
- Children who have strong and contented attachments with their caregiver
- They seek and are comfortable with social interactions
- 60-70%
46
Q
What is insecure-resistant attachment?
What % of British babies are resistant?
A
- Children who both seek and reject intimacy and social interaction
- Less inclined to explore new environments
- Around 3%
47
Q
What is insecure-avoidant attachment?
What % of British babies are avoidant?
A
- Children who tend to avoid social interaction and intimacy
- No proximity-seeking
- Little or no reaction when caregiver leaves or returns + little stranger anxiety
- Able to explore and play independently easily, no matter who is present
- Around 20-25%
48
Q
What was the aim of Ainsworth’s strange situation?
What type of experiment was it?
A
- To assess key attachment behaviours as a means of assessing the quality of a baby’s attachment to a caregiver
- Controlled, overt, non participant
49
Q
What 5 key behaviours were observed in Ainsworth’s strange situation?
(What is the acronym?)
A
PRESS
Proximity seeking
Response to reunion
Exploration and secure-base behaviour
Stranger anxiety
Separation anxiety
50
Q
What are the 7 episodes of procedure in Ainsworth’s strange situation?
A
- The child is encouraged to explore
- A stranger comes in and tries to interact with the child
- The caregiver leaves the child and stranger together
- The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves
- The caregiver leaves child alone
- Stranger returns
- The caregiver returns and is reunited with the child
51
Q
What are the strengths of types of attachment - Ainsworth’s strange situation? (A03)
A
- Support for its predictive validity: its outcome predicts many aspects of baby’s later development - research has shown Type B have better life outcomes - better achievements in school (McCormick et al) and better mental health (Ward et al) -> strange situation measures something meaningful in a baby’s development
- High Reliability: standardised procedure - Strange Situation follows a controlled & replicable structure (8 stages, same room, timings) → ensures consistent classification of attachment types
- Good reliability: has inter-rate reliability - Bick et al found agreement on attachment type in 94% of cases for a team of trained observers testing inter-rater reliability - due to controlled conditions + behaviours involve large easy to observe movements -> not based on subjective judgements
52
Q
What are the weaknesses of types of attachment - Ainsworth’s strange situation? (A03)
A
- May not be a valid measure of attachment in different cultural contexts - babies have different experiences in different cultures which may affect responses -> Takhasi found babies displayed very high levels of separation anxiety so classified insecure resistant - due to rareness of mother-baby separation in Japan
- Could be more attachment types: Main & Solomon found that a minority of children display atypical attachments that don’t fall within types A,B, or C = disorganised attachment (mix between resistant and avoidant)
- BUT: Type D babies are unusual & have usually experienced some type of neglect/abuse (CV)
- Low Ecological Validity: Strange Situation takes place in an artificial lab environment, which may not reflect how infants behave in their natural home setting - reduces findings’ real-world applicability
- Limited Sample: Ainsworth’s original study was based on middle-class American families - findings less generalizable to other socioeconomic or cultural groups
53
Q
What 4 psychologists conducted research into cultural variations in attachment?
A
- Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg
- Simonelli et al
- Jin et al
54
Q
What was the aim and procedure of Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study into cultural variations in attachment?
A
- Aim: to investigate cross-cultural variations in attachment
- Procedure: Meta-analysis
- 32 Studies from eight different countries that had used Ainsworth’s strange situation -> results of over 1990 infants were included
55
Q
What were the findings of Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study into cultural variations in attachment?
A
- Secure attachment was the most common - 50-75% followed by avoidant & resistant
- Resistant was least common -> Japan & Israel (collectivist cultures) showed higher levels in comparison to other cultures
- Insecure-avoidant was most common in Germany and least common in Japan
- Variations within cultures were 150% greater than between e.g. USA: Type B, 46%-90%
56
Q
What was the aim and procedure of Simonelli et al’s research into cultural variatons in attachment?
A
- He assessed 76 12 month old babies using the strange situation
- Aim: Do the proportions of attachment styles still match those found in previous studies
57
Q
What were the findings of Simonelli et al’s research into cultural variations in attachment?
A
- 50% secure
- 36% avoidant
- Lower than previous studies
- Suggested to be due to increasing numbers of mothers working longer hours and using professional childcare
58
Q
What research did Jin et al conduct into cultural variations in attachment?
A
- Aim: compare proportions of attachment types in Korea to previous studies
- Procedure: Assessed 87 children using strange situation
59
Q
What were the findings of Jin et al’s research into cultural variation?
A
- Findings: Overall proportions of insecure and secure babies similar to those in most countries
- However, more of those classified as insecure were resistant and only one child was avoidant
- Similar to the distribution of attachment types found in Japan
60
Q
What were the conclusions of studies into cultural variations of attachment?
A
- Secure attachment is the norm in most cultures - supports Bowlby’s idea that attachments are innate & universal
- Cultural practices can influence attachment types
61
Q
What are the strengths of research into cultural variation? (A03)
A
- Indigenous researchers(those from and in their own country): e.g. meta-analysis included research from Grossman et al (German) & Takashi (Japanese) → many of the potential problems of cross-cultural research can be avoided (e.g. language barriers) – also reduces researcher bias (stereotyping) → successful communication between researchers & participants enhances validity of research
- Large sample sizes: IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg used 32 studies across 8 countries (nearly 2000 infants), increasing population validity & reducing the impact of anomalies
62
Q
What is imposed etic?
A
Occurs when we assume an idea or technique that works in one cultural context will work in another
63
Q
What are the weaknesses of research into cultural variations? (A03)
A
- Confounding variables: IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg claimed to study cultural variation but actually compared countries, not cultures → within any country, there are many different cultures → samples may over-represent certain demographics that would influence child-rearing practices + patterns of attachments seen (eg. Those living in poverty)
- Imposed etic: cross-cultural psychology includes the ideas of emic and etic (when we assume an idea that works in one culture will work in another) → e.g use of babies’ response to reunion in strange situation → in Britain & US lack of affection on reunion = avoidant but in Germany = independence → behaviours measured in strange situations may not have same meaning across different cultural contexts
- Lacks temporal validity - 1988
- Correlational: cross-cultural studies typically identify patterns but can’t establish causal relationships - e.g. while differences in attachment types are linked to cultural practices, other factors like socioeconomic status or education might also influence attachment styles
64
Q
What is Bowlby’s maternal deprivation?
A
- Focuses on the idea that the continual presence of care from a mother or mother substitute is essential for normal psychological development - emotional & intellectual
- Prolonged separation from this adult (mother) can have serious consequences
65
Q
What is the distinction between separation and deprivation?
A
- Separation: child not being in the presence of primary attachment figure
- Extended separation can lead to deprivation - which by definition, causes harm.
- Deprivation: the child loses an element of care and this becomes damaging to development.
66
Q
What did Bowlby define as the critical period for development?
A
- First 2 and half years of life
- If a child is separated from their mother in the absence of suitable substitute care (deprived of emotional care) during this time then psychological damage was inevitable
67
Q
What are the effects of maternal deprivation emotional development?
A
- Affectionless psychopathy is the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others
- Prevents a person developing fulfilling relationships
- Associated with criminality
68
Q
What is affectionless psychopathy?
A
The inability to experience to guilt or strong emotions towards others
69
Q
What are the effects of maternal deprivation on intellectual development?
A
- Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would experience delayed intellectual development - characterised by low IQ
70
Q
What did Goldfarb find out about the intellectual development of institutionalised children?
A
- Found that IQ was lower in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered - higher standard of emotional care
71
Q
What was the procedure of Bowlby’s 44 thieve’s study?
A
- A group of 44 teenagers referred for stealing was compared to a control group of non-criminal but emotionally disturbed teenagers
- All were assessed for affectionless psychopathy
- Families were interviewed for prolonged early separation from mothers
72
Q
What were the findings of Bowlby’s 44 thieves study?
A
- 14/44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths
- 12 of these 14 (86%) experienced early separation
- Only 2 participants in the control group of 44 had experienced long separations
- Prolonged early separation/deprivation causes affectionless psychopathy
73
Q
What are the strengths of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation? (A03)
A
- Animal studies: Levy et al (2003) showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had permanent effects on their social development
- Real world application: influenced hospital policies to allow parents to stay overnight with children & adoption policies, ensuring children are adopted earlier to form secure attachments
74
Q
What are the weaknesses of Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation? (A03)
A
- Poor evidence: theory uses multiple sources of evidence → Goldfarb’s studies of orphaned children during WW2 - war-orphans were traumatized + poor post-war aftercare -> developmental difficulties could have been caused by trauma rather than separation → 44 thieves study - carried out the assessments for affectionless psychopathy and the family interviews himself (bias)
- Critical v Sensitive: used term ‘critical period’ as he believed prolonged separation inevitably caused damage if it took place within that period → Koluchova research into Czech twins who had been abused from 18m-7yrs found they recovered fully by teens after excellent care
- Deprivation v Privation: Rutter (1981) claims Bowlby muddled concepts of deprivation & privation. Rutter distinguished between deprivation (loss of PAF) and privation (failure to form attachment in the first place) + claimed the long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is most likely the result of privation
75
Q
What is institutuonalistion?
A
The effect of spending an extended period of time in an institutional setting
76
Q
What was the aim, method and procedure of Rutter et al’s ERA study?
A
- Aim: To investigate the effects of early institutional care and deprivation on later life development + to find out whether later good care would compensate for poor care and treatment in early life
- Method: Longitudinal study
- Procedure: 165 Romanian children who were orphaned at a few weeks old and later adopted by British families and assessed physical, cognitive & emotional development at ages 4, 6, 11, 15, 22-25
77
Q
What were the findings of Rutter et al’s study?
A
- When they first arrived in the UK, Rutter observed signs of delayed intellectual development
- At 11 they showed differential rates of recovery related to the age they were adopted
- Adopted before 6 months - ‘normal’ development -> IQ of 102
- Adopted after 6 months - high levels of disinhibited attachment-> IQ of 86
- Adopted after 2 years - high levels of disinhibited attachment -> IQ score of 77
78
Q
What was the procedure and findings of Zeanah et al’s study?
A
- Used the strange situation to assess attachment in 95 children aged 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutional care
- They were compared to control groups of 50 children who had never experienced institutional care
- Findings:
- Securely attached - 19% orphans, 74% control
- Disinhibited attachment - 44% orphans, 20% control
79
Q
What are the 3 effects of institutionalistaion?
A
- Disinhibited attachment - Intellectual disability
- Physical under-development
80
Q
What is disinhibited attachment (effect of institutionalisation?
A
- A form of insecure attachment where the adoptees do not discriminate between attachment figures
- Equally affectionate towards strangers and familiar people
81
Q
What is physical under-development? (effect of institutionallisation?
A
- Children in institutional care are usually physically small and poorly nourished
- Research has shown that lack of emotional care, rather than poor nourishment is the cause of “deprivation dwarfism”
82
Q
What is intellectual disability (effect of institutionalisation)?
A
- Most children showed signs of intellectual disability when they first arrived
- Those adopted before 6 months caught up by aged 4
83
Q
What are the strengths of research into romanian orphans? (A03)
A
- Real-world application: studying the Romanian orphans has improved psychologists’ understanding of the effects of early institutional care + how to prevent the worst of these effects moving forward (Langton) → led to vast improvements in the conditions that children growing up in a care system experience (eg. Better caregiver to child ratio)→ children in care have the chance to develop normal attachments
- Lack of confounding variables: Many orphan studies before the Romanian orphans e.g. WW2 orphan studies → many of these children would have experiences varying degrees of trauma- hard to differentiate the effects of neglect, abuse etc bereavement from effects of institutional care → results were much less likely to have been influenced by other negative early life experiences (confounding variables) -high internal validity
84
Q
What are the weaknesses of research into Romanian orphans? (A03)
A
- Lack of data on adult development: latest data from ERA Study looked at children in their early-mid 20s - we don’t have data to answer some of the questions regarding long-term effects of early institutional care e.g. success in forming & maintaining adult romantic & parental relationships + it will take a long time to gather this data (longitudinal study)
- Social sensitivity: due to the late-adopted children typically having poor developmental outcomes → results have been published whilst the children have been growing up meaning that people (parents, teachers, etc) may have lowered their expectations of the children and/or treated them differently → could even create a self-fulfilling prophecy
85
Q
What is the influence of the internal working model on later relationships?
A
- According to Bowlby, infants develop a schema based on their attachment to their primary caregiver
- This schema acts as a template for how relationships work + nature of future relationships
86
Q
What is the continuity hypothesis?
A
Suggests an individual’s future relationships will follow a pattern based on their IWM
87
Q
What did Kerns suggest about the influence of early attachment on childhood relationships?
A
- Securely attached babies tend to go on to form the best quality childhood friendships
- Insecurely attached babies have later friendship difficulties
88
Q
What did Wilson & Smith suggest about the influence of early attachment on childhood relationships?
A
- Bullying behaviour can be predicted by attachment type
- Assessed attachment type & bullying involvement using standard questionnaires in 196 London children
- Secure = unlikely to be involved in bullying
- Insecure-avoidant = most likely bullies
- Insecure-resistant = most likely victims
89
Q
What did Hazan & Shaver suggest about the influence of early attachment on adult relationships?
A
- Analaysed 620 replies to a love quiz of 3 sections: 1) current/most important relationship, 2) general love experience, 3)attachment type
- Respondents were 56% secure, 25% avoidant, 19% resistant
- Secure = most likely to have long-lasting romantic experiences
- Avoidant = jealousy + fear of intimacy
- Patterns of attachment behaviour are reflected in romantic relationships
90
Q
What research did McCarthy carry out into the influence of early attachment on adult relationships?
A
- Studied 40 women assessed using the strange situation as infants
- Found adults with long-lasting & secure adult friendships were securely attached in infancy
- Avoidant struggled with intimacy
- Resistant struggled maintaining friendships
91
Q
What did Bailey et al suggest about the influence of early attachment on adult relationships?
A
- Considered attachment of 99 mothers to their babies + own mothers
- Mother-baby attachment was assessed using strange situation & attachment to their own primary caregiver assessed using adult attachment interview
- Mothers with poor attachment to primary caregiver = poorly attached babies
- People base parenting style on their IWM
92
Q
What are the strengths of research into the influence of early attachment on later relationships? (A03)
A
- Research support: e.g. Fearon & Roisman’s review of previous studies – concluded that early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional well-being & attachment to own children -> Varying strength of relationship between early attachment & later development depends on attachment type + aspect of later development - Eg. avoidant = mild disadvantages later in life, but disorganised attachment is strongly associated with later mental disorder -> secure-babies =advantage for future development, disorganised=serious disadvantages
- Counter: correlational - may be a third variable e.g. genetically influenced personality
93
Q
What are the weaknesses of research into the influence of early attachment on later relationships? (A03)
A
- Validity of retrospective studies: early attachment often assessed retrospectively (most studies aren’t longitudinal) - adolescents & adults are asked questions about their relationship with their parents & an attachment type is identified from this -> causes 2 validity problems: 1) asking questions relies on the honesty and accurate perception of ppts, 2) hard to know if early attachment or adult attachment is in fact being assessed -> could have many confounding factors
- Confounding variables: some studies assess attachment in infancy (McCarthy) so validity rises but associations between attachment quality & later development may be affected by confounding variables. e.g. parenting style may influence both attachment quality & later development, but so might genetically-influenced personality traits -> we can’t be entirely sure that is is early attachment, not other factors that have impacted later development
- Balancing opportunity & risk: Clarke & Clarke (1998) - influence of early attachment is probabilistic - knowing somebody’s early attachment type/experiences doesn’t inevitably tell us how their relationships will pan out later in their lives - may make experiences/behaviours more likely but there will always be many other factors involved - also pessimism + self-fulfilling prophecies -> not a holistic explanation
- Correlational:
most studies establish correlations, not causation - e.g. while early attachment is linked to later relationships, other factors (e.g., personality, life events) may also play a role -> limits internal validity - ## Social desirability bias
