Attachment

Question 1

What did Juffer et al., (1997) do?

Answer 1

Conducted a study in Sensitive Parenting training

• 90 Dutch families with internationally adopted child
• Families randomly allocated to Control or Intervention
• Intervention group trained in Sensitivity + given feedback on video performance

Question 2

Results of Juffer et al. 1997 study?

Answer 2

• Intervention greatly increased secure attachment style (up to 20% increase)
• Decreased insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant styles compared to control group
• Showed environment major determinant of attachment style
  

Question 3

Cultural variations in attachment?

Answer 3

Germany, Japan, and U.S.

US - vast majority secure, ~20% insecure-avoidant, and ~15% insecure-resistant

Japan - more % secure than US. Very low insecure-avoidant, higher proportion of insecure-resistant

Germany - lower % secure. Higher % of insecure-avoidant and lower % of insecure-resistant

Question 4

Temperament account for individual differences?

Answer 4

Individual, biological, differences in CNS structure/functioning (e.g. limbic system and especially the amygdala) lead to different temperaments

Question 5

Jerome Kagan’s Theory?

Answer 5

Inhibited-Uninhibited Dimension
- All children can be located on a behavioural dimension that describes their typical reactions (how responsive they are) to novel and unexpected events
- Possible to measure child’s temperament by 4 months
- Basis of these individual differences is biological - arousal in the amygdala
-

Question 6

What did Kagan propose lead to inhibited temperaments?

Answer 6

Children who have higher resting levels of arousal in the amygdala - very reactive emotionally to novel events - most inhibited

• Push past ‘pleasant stimulation’ then behaviourally want to withdraw from novelty
• Socially more inhibited
• Insecure-resistant style

Question 7

What did Kagan propose lead to uninhibited temperaments?

Answer 7

Children who have lower resting levels of arousal in the amygdala - not very reactive to novel events - more uninhibited

• Can cope with much more novelty
• Insecure-avoidant style

Question 8

What was the temperament profile of the inhibited child according to Kagan?

Answer 8

– Reacts to unfamiliar people and events with restraint, distress, and avoidance
– Requires more time to relax in new situations
– Has more unusual fears (phobias)

Question 9

What was the temperament profile of the uninhibited child according to Kagan?

Answer 9

– Seems to enjoy unfamiliar people and events

– Responds with spontaneity to novel situations, laughing and smiling easily

Question 10

What other assessments are involved in assessing the Inhibited-Uninhibited Dimension?

Answer 10

Parental report questionnaires, laboratory observations, psychphysiological assessments

Question 11

Causes of secure attachment?

Answer 11

Responsive ‘Sensitive’ parenting style during 6-1 months

• Quick and sensitive response to changes in emotional state
• Feeding schedule cued by baby’s responses
• Consistency in response

Question 12

Consequences of secure attachment?

Answer 12

• 1 - 3.5 years: more positive emotions, more empathetic, less aggressive, more socially skilled, more friends
• 11 years: more confident, more socially competent, higher self-esteem

Question 13

Causes of insecure-disorganised attachment?

Answer 13

• Experience of their own childhood trauma
• Active parent addictions
• Recent Loss of parent
• Currently experiencing a trauma / related problem