Attachment Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is interactional synchrony?

A

Mirroring of the same action between the mother and the child.

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

What did Meltzof + Moore (1977) found with interactional synchrony?

A

Found it in babies as young as 2 weeks.

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

What did Isabella et al. (1989) note with interactional synchrony?

A

High levels of synchrony were associated with better quality infant-mother attachment.

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

What is reciprocity?

A

One person responding to the other, involves close attention to verbal signals and facial expression.

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

How did Brazleton et al. (1975) describe reciprocity?

A

Like a dance.

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

Give 2 strengths of research carried out into caregiver-infant interactions

A

1) Uses well controlled procedures
- fine details recorded and analysed.
- babies don’t know they’re being observed so behaviour doesn’t change.

2) Potential value to society:
- Crotwell (2013) - 10 min Patient-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) improved IS in 20 low-income mothers compared to a control group.

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

Give 2 negatives of research carried out into caregiver-infant interactions

A

1) Observations don’t tell us purpose of both:
- Feldman (2012) both reciprocity and synchrony simply happen at the same time
- observable but what’s the purpose?

2) Research into this area socially sensitive:
- suggests children may be disadvantaged by particular responses; e.g. mothers returning to work restricts opportunity for IS.

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

From Schaffer + Emerson’s (1964) findings, when did children form attachments with fathers; and how many did?

A

(i) by 18 months

(ii) 75% of cases

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

What did Grossman (2002) note about the role of the father?

A
  • Quality of attachment less important with father, also less important in long term development of children’s emotions.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is considered very important to the role of the father?

A

The father’s play; not nurturing.

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

What do fathers tend to do when they’re primary caregivers?

A

Adopt mother-like behaviours, e.g. smiling, imitating.

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

How does research into the role of the father have economic implications?

A
  • Challenges traditional views that just mothers are primary care givers.
  • Men can do the job just as good as females.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Give 3 limitations in to inquiries of the role of the father?

A

1) Research interested in different questions:
- primary or secondary caregivers.
- cannot clearly answer what the role of the father is.

2) Evidence undermines distinct father role:
- McCallum + Golombok (2004) - children in single or same sex families don’t develop indifferently.
- father as secondary caregiver necessarily important?

3) No clear answer about fathers being primary attachment figures:
- is it based on traditional roles preventing father nurture or is it hormone based?

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

What are Schaffer’s four stages of attachment? Mention them in order.

A

1) Asocial stage: (first few weeks) - indiscriminate behaviour towards objects and humans.
2) Indiscriminate attachment: (2-7 months) - preference for humans; no one is favoured; stranger and separation anxiety not shown.
3) Specific attachment: (7 months (ish)) - stranger and separation anxiety when separated from one particular adult: those who respond to the ‘signals’.
4) Multiple attachments (around 1 year) - secondary attachment formed within a month 24% of the time.

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

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

A
  • 60 Glasgow babies
  • Visited at home monthly for a year and at 18 months.
  • Separation anxiety measured by child’s behaviour to being left alone.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What were the findings and conclusions of Schaffer + Emerson’s study?

A
  • 50% showed separation anxiety between 25-32 weeks.
  • Attachment mostly with mother.
  • Attachment = those who responded to the right signals and most interactive.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Give 2 evaluative strengths of Schaffer’s stages of attachment

A

1) External validity:
- in the home, natural environment to babies.
- behaviour observed by parents, thus natural: unaffected by researchers.

2) The study was longitudinal:
- high internal validity, observations and differences not due to participant variables e.g. temperament.

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

Give 2 evaluative weaknesses of Schaffer’s stages of attachment

A

1) How are multiple attachments assessed?:
- distress doesn’t necessarily mean that person is a primary figure –> behaviour between primary and secondary figures isn’t clear.

2) Timing of multiple attachments conflicting:
- Bowlby (1969) states a primary figure comes before multiple attachments.
- Van Ijzendoorn (1993) showed multiple attachment formed sooner where they are the norm: collectivist cultures.

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

Describe Lorenz’s procedure

A
  • Divided 12 geese eggs, 6 saw their mother at first sight, the other 6 saw Lorenz.
  • Also observed later courtship behaviours.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What were the findings and conclusions of Lorenz’s study?

A
  • Geese followed who they saw first.
  • Critical period of a few hours; after that no attachment is formed.
  • Sexual imprinting occurs from a template of desirable characteristics.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Give;

(i) 1 evaluative strength of Lorenz’s study
(ii) 1 evaluative weakness of Lorenz’s study

A

(i) Support for imprinting:
- Guiton (1966) - found that chickens imprinted on yellow washing-up gloves and tried to mate with the as adults
= innate mechanism to attach?

(ii) Generalising from birds to humans:
- mammals different to birds e.g. mammals show more emotion to young.

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

Describe Harlow’s (1958) procedure

A
  • 16 rhesus monkeys.
  • (Condition 1) Plain-wire monkey with milk
  • (Condition 2) Cloth covered but no milk
  • Reactions to frightening situations were measured.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What were the findings and conclusions of Harlow’s study?

A
  • Babies preferred cloth covered mothers.
  • When frightened, babies went to the cloth mother.
  • Monkeys suffered severe consequences in future: more aggression, killing offspring, less skill mating.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Give;

(i) 1 evaluative strength of Harlow’s study
(ii) 2 evaluative weaknesses of Harlow’s study

A

(i) Practical applications:
- Howe (1998) helped social workers understand risk factors in child abuse and how to prevent it.
- understand monkey attachment better too.

(ii) 1) Ethical issues:
- Monkeys similar to humans; Harlow aware of damage he was causing.
2) Generalising from monkeys to humans:
- more similar than geese, but babies babble which may influence attachment formation.

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

Explain Dollard + Miller (1950)’s learning theory of attachment?

A

1) Classical conditioning - learning by association.
(i) UCS (food) –> UCR (pleasure)
(ii) NS (caregiver) –> No response as he/she hasn’t been associated with food yet.
(iii) UCS + NS (food + caregiver) –> UCR (pleasure)
= (iv) CS (caregiver) –> CR (pleasure)
= caregiver is associated with food.

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

Explain the role of operant conditioning in attachment?

A

OC explains why babies cry for comfort.

  • Crying -> response from caregiver.
  • As long as a response is provided, crying is reinforced as it produces a pleasurable consequence.
  • The caregiver receives negative reinforcement.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What is a primary drive?

A

An innate biological motivator, e.g. eating to reduce hunger.

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

Give 1 strength of the learning theory

A
  • Elements of conditioning could still be involved:
    main problems around that feeding provides reinforcement, UCS or primary drive
    = human development still affected by conditioning.
    = classical conditioning between comfort and caregiver.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

How do Schaffer + Emerson counter the learning theory?

A
  • Show that babies did not attach to those who fed them, (no UCS or primary drive involved)
  • Other factors > food in attachment.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What does learning theory ignore?

A

Other factors associated with quality of attachment such as developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony.

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

(i) What new explanation of attachment has been provided,
(ii) By who
(iii) What is it about?

A
  • Hay + Vespo (1988).
  • Parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviours e.g. cuddling –> interactions.
  • Based off SLT.
32
Q

According to Bowlby, why is attachment innate?

A

For survival.

33
Q

What does Bowlby call one main primary caregiver?

A

Monotropy.

34
Q

According to Bowlby, more time spent with the primary caregiver is beneficiary, for what two reasons is this the case?

A

1) Law of continuity = constant –> better quality

2) Law of accumulated separation = effects of separation add up.

35
Q

What are social releasers?

A
  • Innate cute behaviours that elicit a response from an adult, encouraging attention and attachment - e.g. crying.
36
Q

According to Bowlby, how long is the critical period?

A

2 years

37
Q

What is an internal working model?

A
  • First attachment forms an IWM of relationships.
  • A template of initial relationships that affect how we view future relationships.
  • Loving relationships –> loving relationships later in life.
38
Q

Give 2 strengths of Bowlby’s theory of attachment

A

1) Clear evidence of social releasers:
- Brazleton et al. (1975) told primary caregivers to stop responding to their baby’s social releasers.
= babies who received response normally showed distress
= significant –> social behaviour and role of releasers in initiating social interaction

2) Research support for IWM:
- Bailey et al. (2007).
- 99 mothers; those with poor attachments to their own mum were likely to have it with their own 1 y/o baby.

39
Q

How is evidence for monotropy mixed?

A

Schaffer + Emerson showed that multiple attachments did form: contradictory to Bowlby

40
Q

How is monotropy socially sensitive?

A
  • Law of accumulated separation states that all separations add up, this may confine women to a traditional role.
  • Burman (1994) –> was it intended?
41
Q

How might have Bowlby overemphasised the role of attachment?

A
  • Temperament is important in how development entails; more anxious/sociable (Kagan, 1982).
  • Temperament –> later social behaviour?
42
Q

What 5 categories were used in the Strange Situation to assess attachment quality?

A

1) Proximity seeking
2) Exploration + secure base behaviour: exploring but using caregiver as a point of safety.
3) Stranger anxiety
4) Separation anxiety
5) Response to reunion with caregiver

43
Q

What were the findings of the Strange Situation?

A

1) Secure attachment:
- 60-75% of British kids
- Happy to explore, but sought proximity.
- Moderate separation and stranger anxiety.
- Requires and accepts comfort on reunion

2) Insecure-avoidant:
- 20-25% British kids.
- Explore freely: don’t seek proximity
- Little/no separation and stranger anxiety.
- Don’t require comfort on reunion

3) Insecure-resistant:
- 3% British kids.
- Explores less, seeks more proximity.
- Considerable separation and stranger anxiety.
- Resists comfort at reunion

44
Q

What are the 3 attachment types?

A

1) Secure attachment
2) Insecure-avoidant
3) Insecure-resistant

45
Q

Give 2 strengths of the Strange Situation

A

1) Very good inter-rater reliability:
- Bick et al. (2012) found 94% agreement.
- Observable behavioural categories, controlled conditions.

2) Predictive validity of attachment types:
- predict later development e.g. secure babies have greater success at school.
- Kokkinos (2007) insecure-resistant children more likely to be bullies.
- Ward et al. (2006) insecure-resistant children more likely to have adult mental health problems

46
Q

Give 2 evaluative weakness of the Strange Situation

A

1) Culturally bound?:
- experiences differ = responses different
- caregivers behaviour differs.
- Takahashi (1990) - Japanese mothers rarely leave their children so may show high levels of separation anxiety

2) Other attachment types?:
- Ainsworth identified 3.
- Main + Solomon (1986) - some children are atypical in that they are in two attachment types; a mix of avoidant and resistant.

47
Q

Describe Van Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis procedure

A
  • Looked at the 3 attachment types across countries and within them.
  • 32 studies in total, just under 2000 kids.
48
Q

What did the meta-analysis find?

A
  • Secure attachment most common type: 50% in China, 75% in Britain.
  • Insecure-avoidant rates similar to Ainsworth’s findings; high levels in collectivist cultures.
  • Variations between countries lower than within; up to 150% difference.
49
Q

Give 1 evaluative strenght of van Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg’s sitdy

A

1) Very large samples:
- vI + K used nearly 2000 babies
- raises internal validity as result aren’t down to bias methodology or unusual participants.

50
Q

Why might the meta analyses not be representative of different cultures?

A
  • Compares countries not cultures.

- van Ijzendoorn + Sagi (2001) found attachment types in urban Tokyo were similar to Western studies.

51
Q

Why might be the Strange situation be a product of imposed etic?

A
  • Created by an American, based on British theory.

- Tries to apply a technique/theory to multiple cultures.

52
Q

How is Temperament a confouding variable of the strange situation?

A
  • Assume stranger and separation anxiety is because of attachment.
  • Kagan (1982) - genetic personality more important.
53
Q

What’s Bowlby’s other theory a part from his theory of attachment?

A

Maternal deprivation theory

54
Q

According to Bowlby’s Maternal deprivation theory, why is continuous emotional development needed?

A

To ensure normal emotional and intellectual development of the child

55
Q

How is maternal deprivation caused?

A

Excessive duration of separation

56
Q

What is the critical period, and how long is it according Bowlby’s Maternal deprivation theory

A

The period in which essential to attachment

  • extended separation –> psychological damage
  • first 30 months
57
Q

What two things can maternal deprivation lead to?

A

1) Lower IQ
- Goldfarb (1947) found lower IQs in children in institutions compared to foster children.
2) Affectionless psychopathy
- inability to feel guilt or empathise

58
Q

What study was used to support Bowlby’s Maternal deprivation theory?

A

Bowlby’s 44 thieves study

59
Q

Describe the procedure of the 44 thieves study

A
  • 44 delinquent teenagers accused of stealing
  • Interviews - establishing any prolonged separation from mothers.
  • Thieves interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy
60
Q

What was found in the 44 thieves study

A
  • 14/44 could be seen as affectionless psychopaths: 12 of these had experienced prolonged separations.
  • Remaining 5/30 had experienced separations.
61
Q

How is the evidence used to support Bowlby’s Maternal deprivation theory flawed?

A
  • Goldfarb studied orphans traumatised by war and had poor after-care = these factors caused later developmental difficulties?
  • Bowlby knew what he was looking = validity?
62
Q

Who counters the 44 thieves study, and can you describe it?

A
  • Lewis (1954)
  • Replicated 44 thieves study on 500 people.
  • Prolonged separation did not predict criminality or difficulty forming relationships.
  • Other factors e.g. poverty??
63
Q

Who find evidence to say that the critical period is actually more of a sensitive period?

A
  • Koluchova (1976)
  • Studied Czech twin boys isolated from 18 months
    = later looked after by 2 loving parents and appeared to recover fully
    = interaction and after-care key
64
Q

How does Rutter (1981) criticise Bowlby’s Maternal deprivation theory?

A

1) Didn’t distinguish between deprivation and privation:
- Deprivation = loss of caregiver once attachment has been formed.
- Privation = failure to form one at all.
- Many thieves moved from home to home so may have never formed an attachment.

65
Q

What are the 2 effects of institutionalisation?

A

1) Disinhibited attachment - equally affectionate towards those they know well and to strangers
- adaptation to situation?

2) Damage to intellectual development - mental retardation; effect not pronounced pre-6 month adoption.

66
Q

Describe Rutter et al.’s (2011) procedure into Romanian orphans?

A
  • 165 Romanian Orphans adopted by British parents.
  • Longitudinal study to test how good care can make up for poor early experiences in institutions.
  • Followed up 52 British adoptees too.
67
Q

What were the findings of Rutter et al’s study into Romanian orphans?

A
  • Recovery rates related to age of adoption.
    1) Before 6 months = mean IQ of 102.
    2) Between 6 months-2 years = mean IQ of 86.
    3) After 2 years = mean IQ of 77.
  • Disinhibted attachment related to age of adoption.
    = Apparent in children adopted after 6 months
    = Rare in children adopted before 6 months.
68
Q

How has research into Romanian orphans had important practical applications?

A
  • Langton (2006) led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions.
  • More care givers now play a ‘central role’ for children –> develop normal attachment?
69
Q

A part from important practical applications, give an evaluative strength of Romanian orphans studies

A

Few confounding variables

  • Normal studies have CVS like neglect, trauma before institutionalisation –> thus the effects may be down to more than one factor.
  • Most Romanian orphans abandoned at birth –> IV.
70
Q

Give 2 evaluative limitations of Romanian orphan studies

A

1) Generalising?:
- Conditions in orphanages so bad, particularly poor.
- Can they be applied to institutional care as we know it?

2) Long term effects not clear:
- Signs shown by children short-term or long-term?
- Currently lag behind –> may catch up as adults

71
Q

In terms of influence of early attachment on later relationships, describe the IWM

A

1) First attachment is template for future relationships
- Good experience of attachment = good relationship expectations and vice versa as you assume all relationships will be like the first.
2) Kerns (1994) - securely attached infants more likely form better friendships in childhood.
3) Myren-Wilson + Smith (1998) - insecure-avoidant children more likely to be victims of bullying; insecure-resistant more likely to be bullies.
4) IWM affects parenting - base their style on IWM, so attachments are passed on.

72
Q

Describe Hazan + Shaver’s (1987) procedure

A
- Analysed 620 replies from a love quiz.
Questioned on:
- Current and most important relationships
- Love experiences
- Attachment type
73
Q

What were the findings of the love quiz?

A
  • 56% securely attached, 25% insecure-avoidant, 19% insecure-resistant.
  • Secure respondent –> good+long lasting relationships.
  • Avoidant respondent –> jealous, feared intimacy.
74
Q

How do studies into influence of early attachments on later relationships have validity issues?

A
  • Don’t use SS but interviews or questionnaires.

- Honesty needed to increase validity, also dependent on recollection

75
Q

How is evidence of continuity of attachment mixed?

A
  • IWM –> attachment predicts future relationships.
  • Zimmermann (2000) assessed infant attachment types and adolescent attachment types to parents.
    = very little relationship between quality of infant attachment and adolescent attachment.
76
Q

Who says influence of early attachments on later relationships is exaggerated?

A
  • Clarke + Clarke (1998) - calls this influence ‘probabilistic’ - not doomed, just greater risk of problems.
77
Q

What is the theoretical problem with research related to IWM?

A
  • IWMs are unconscious, so we are unaware of its influence.
    = can we accurately record, if at all?
    = is a self-report reliable –> falsifiable?