Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psych paper 1 miss g > Attachment > Flashcards

Attachment Flashcards

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

Attachment definition

A

A close two-way emotional bond between two individuals in which each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security

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

What/who is attachment between?

A

Only people not an inanimate object

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

What three behaviours are displayed through attachment?

A

Proximity
Separation distress
Secure-base behaviour

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

Proximity definition

A

Physical closeness to attachment figure

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

Separation distress definition

A

Distress when attachment figure leaves

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

Secure-base behaviour definition

A

Regular contact with attachment figure

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

Which 2 people studied animal research for attachment?

A

Lorenz

Harlow

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

Aim of Lorenz’ animal study

A

Imprinting + how goslings attach to caregivers

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

Lorenz’ procedure for animal study

A
  • randomly divided clutch of goose eggs
  • half hatched with mother goose in natural environment
  • half hatched in incubator where Lorenz is first moving object
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Lorenz’ animal study findings

A

-followed first moving object
-put the 2 groups together
-control group followed mother
-experimental group followed Lorenz’
This is called imprinting

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

strengths of Lorenz’ study

A
  • goslings imprinted irreversibly so early in life supports imprinting
  • standardised procedure so is reliable
  • measured what I wanted to investigate so is valid
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Weaknesses of Lorenz study

A
  • birds attachment is not same as humans so study isn’t generalisable
  • not ethical to remove birds from habitat
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Aim of Harlows animal study?

A

Importance of contact comfort

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

Harlows animal study procedure

A
  • 16 baby monkeys with 2 wire model ‘mothers’
  • milk dispensed by plain wire mother in one condition
  • milk dispensed by cloth cover mother in another condition
  • time measured of how long each monkey was with surrogate mother + how long they cried for biological mother
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Harlows animal study findings

A
  • baby monkeys cuddled soft object in preference to wire one
  • sought cloth comfort regardless to which one dispensed milk
  • willing to explore room full of toys when cloth covered monkey was present
  • phobic responses when only wire surrogate was present
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Harlows animal study conclusion

A

Showed contact comfort was more important than food with attachment behaviour

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

Strengths for Harlows study

A
  • standardised so was reliable as could be replicated easily

- helped social workers understand risk factors in abuse + neglect (changed how zoo animals are treated)

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

Limitations of Harlows study

A
  • monkeys not same as humans so not generalisable

- monkeys suffered great psychological harm so not ethical

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

Learning theory definition

A

A theory that uses classical + operant conditioning to explain attachment

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

Who proposed the learning theory?

A

Dollars + Miller

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

Classical conditioning explanation linked to learning theory

A

UCS (food) -> UCR (pleasure)
NS (mother) -> NR (no response)
UCS + NS -> UCR
CS (mother) -> CR (pleasure)

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

Operant conditioning explanation linked to learning theory

A 
Crying leads to comfort (positively reinforced) 
Crying ignored (negative reinforcement)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Attachment as secondary drive definition

A

Food is primary drive

Attachment is secondary drive learned through association with food

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

Learning theory strengths

A

-unlikely food is central to attachment but conditioning is sill important - baby’s primary caregiver choice is based on comfort (Harlow) - conditioning important in attachment figure choice

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

Learning theory weakness

  • Harlow
  • Isabella et al
A
  • babies attachment went to cloth surrogate not the wire model that was supplying food - shows feeding isn’t the key element to attachment
  • other factors like reciprocity + interactional synchrony are associated with attachment - best attachment is with sensitive carers that respond to infants - hard to reconcile these findings in idea of ‘cupboard love’ - there would be no need for these interactions if feeding was the main attachment factor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What is Bowlby’s monotropic theory?

A

An evolutionary explanation of attachment

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

What is Bowlby’s evolutionary explanation of attachment?

A

Attachment is an innate system that gives a survival advantage

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

Why did imprinting + attachment evolve?

A

ensures animals stayed close to caregivers

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

Who did Bowlby’s believe the monotropic bond was with?

A

Mother

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

What does the law of continuing state?

A

The more constant a child’s care, the better attachment quality

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

What does the law of accumulated separation state?

A

Effects of every repetition from the mother add up

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

What did Bowlby’s believe about the amount of time the baby spends with the primary attachment figure?

A

More the better

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

What is the purpose of social release era?

A

Achieve adult attachment system + make adult feel love towards baby

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

What did Bowlby’s notice about attachment?

A

It’s a reciprocal process

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

What is a critical period?

A

The time where attachment must form if it is to form at all

36
Q

What did Bowlby’s think the critical period was for human?

A

Two years

37
Q

What is the sensitive period?

A

When the child is maximally sensitive to developing an attachment

38
Q

What is an internal working model?

A

The frame work we have based on our primary caregiver relationship

39
Q

What does the internal working model effect?

A

future relationships

40
Q

Strengths of Bowlby’s monotropic theory

  • Brazelton et al
  • Bailey et al
A
  • observed mothers + babies supporting interactional synchrony - primary figure instructed to ignore babies social releasers - babies showed initial distress then lay motionless/ curled up - shows significance of infant social behaviour in eliciting caregiver
  • tested IWM - 99 mothers + 1 year old babies on attachment quality using standard interview + observation - mothers who has own parent poor attachment = more likely poor attachment from observation - supports IWM passed through families
41
Q

Weaknesses of Bowlby’s monotropic theory

  • Schaffer + Emerson
  • Suess et al
A
  • S+E found significant minority could form multiple attachments without having to form one primary attachment first - found nothing different about first attachment compared to others
  • studies found nothing different about primary attachment but mothers attachment are more likely to predict later behaviour HOWEVER - this could just mean primary is stronger not different
42
Q

What did Mary Ainsworth’s Strange Situation assess?

A

The nature and quality of attachment behaviour

43
Q

Steps of Mary Ainsworth strange situation study

A
  • 100 middleclass American infants + mothers
    1) child + caregiver enter unfamiliar play room
    2) stranger comes to interact with child
    3) caregiver leaves
    4) caregiver returns + stranger leaves
    5) caregiver leaves child alone
    6) stranger returns
    7) caregiver reunited with child
44
Q

Secure attachment results

A
  • explore happier but regular interaction with caregiver
  • moderate separation distress + stranger anxiety
  • comfort in reunion stage
  • 60-75%
45
Q

Insecure avoidant attachment results

A
  • explores freely but doesn’t seek proximity
  • little reaction when caregiver leaves
  • little stranger anxiety
  • littler contact on reunion
  • 20-25%
46
Q

Insecure resistant results

A
  • explore less + seek greater proximity
  • huge stranger anxiety
  • resist comfort in reunion
  • 3%
47
Q

SS strength

  • validity
  • reliability (bick et al 2012)
  • method evaluation points
A
  • secure = better outcomes, insecure resistant = worst outcomes e.g. bullying - valid because can explain subsequent outcomes
  • good inter-rater reliability - controlled conditions - easy to observe behavioural categories - (bick et al 2012 agreement 94% babies)

(-based on observation)

48
Q

SS limitation

  • generalisability (takahashi 1990)
  • method evaluation points
A
  • culture bound test - different caregivers - generalisability problems- takahashi (1990) said SS doesn’t work in Japan as mothers are rarely separated from babies = higher separation anxiety

(-ethical issues by separating children from caregiver, procedure based on only Americans, controlled conditions = lacks generalisability to other situations)

49
Q

Meta-analysis definition

A

Examination fo date from a number of different independent studies of the same subject

50
Q

What are the 3 studies of cultural variation?

A
  • van ijzendoorn & kroonberg (1988)
  • simonella et al (2014)
  • jin et al (2012)
52
Q

What did van ijzendoorn & kroonberg (1988) study?

A

Types of attachment across 3 cultures

53
Q

van ijzendoorn & kroonberg (1988) method

A

Data from 32 studies on 8 different countries all using strange situation

54
Q

van ijzendoorn & kroonberg (1988) findings

A
  • secure attachment most common
  • low percent of secure attachment in China
  • higher secure attachment in Britain
  • avoidant more common in west germany
55
Q

Aim of Simonella et al (2014)

A

Whether proptortions of babies of different attachment types match this found in previous studies

56
Q

Simonella et al (2014) method

A

Assessed 76 12 month old babies using strange situation

57
Q

Simonella et al (2014) finding

A
  • 50% secure (lower than in previous studies)

- 36% insecure avoidant

58
Q

Simonella et al (2014) conclusion

A

Cultural changes made big difference

59
Q

Jin et al (2012) aim

A

Compare proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies

60
Q

Jin et al (2012) method

A

87 babies assessed using strange situation

61
Q

Jin et al (2012) findings

A
  • Secure + insecure resistant similar to other countries

- Only 1 Korean baby assessed as insecure avoidant

62
Q

Strength of cultural variation

A

large amounts of evidence - van ijenzdoorn + kroonberg 2000 babies - good internal validity

63
Q

Weaknesses of cultural variation

A
  • unrepresentative of cultures - V+K meta analysis comparison between countries not cultures - country comparisons = little meaning
  • biased assessment - SS = American researcher - unsure if can be applied to other cultures
  • alternative explanations for cultural similarities - Bowlby = innate attachment
64
Q

Jin et al (2012) conclusion

A
  • Strange situation is a valid measure

- cultural differences

65
Q

van ijzendoorn & kroonberg (1988) conclusion

A

Universal characteristics that under on infant and care interactions (secure)

66
Q

Weaknesses for Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory

A
  • poor evidence - Bowlby used traumatised orphans so could have caused later development difficulties rather than separation - 44theives biased
  • counter evidence - Hilda Lewis (1954) - larger thieves scale - prolonged separation didn’t predict criminality - suggests other factors predict criminality
67
Q

Strengths of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory

A

-Animal studies - long term affects - Levy et al (2003)- separate rats from mothers = social development affect

68
Q

What is Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation?

A

The emotional + intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their mother/mother substitute

69
Q

Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study?

A
  • 44 teenagers accused of stealing
  • interviewed for lack of affection
  • 14/44 had psychopathy traits
  • 12/44 had maternal deprivation when younger
70
Q

Deprivation defining

A

Emotional + intellectual consequences of separation

71
Q

Institutionalisation definition

A

attachment which refers to the effect of growing up in orphanage or children’s home

72
Q

What are the 4 possible effects of institutionalisation?

A
  • physical underdevelopment
  • intellectual underdevelopment/mental retardation
  • disinhibited attachment
  • poor parenting
73
Q

2 studies of institutionalisation

A
  • Rutter’s ERA (English + Romanian adoptee) study

- Bucharest early intervention project

74
Q

Rutters ERA study for institutionalisation aim

A

The extent good care could make up for experiences in institutions

75
Q

Rutters ERA study for institutionalisation findings

A

-adopted before 6 months (102 IQ)
-between 6 months + 2 years (86 IQ)
-after 2 years (77 IQ)
Disinhibited attachment after 6 months

76
Q

Rutters ERA study for institutionalisation method

A
  • 165 Romanian orphans adopted to Britain
  • physical, cognitive + emotional development asses at 4, 6, 11 + 15 years old
  • 52 British adoptees for control group
77
Q

Rutters ERA study for institutionalisation conclusion

A

Institutionalisation has effect in children’s attachment + intellect

78
Q

Bucharest early intervention project aim

A

Compare attachment types between Romanian children in institutionalised care + those not

79
Q

Bucharest Early intervention project for institutionalisation method

A
  • Strange situation to assess attachment type in 95 children ages 12-31 months in Romania
  • control group of 50
80
Q

Bucharest Early intervention project for institutionalisation findings

A
  • 74% control group securely attached
  • 19% of institutionalised group securely attached
  • 65% of institutionalised group disorganised attachment
81
Q

Romanian studies + effect of institutionalisation strengths

A
  • validity - previous studies participants may have trauma - Romanian don’t so increased internal validity
  • application - enhanced understanding - improved children’s care - practical valubility
82
Q

Romanian studies + effect of institutionalisation weaknesses

A
  • generalisability - worse conditions than institutional care - unusual situational variables - not applicable to other cultures
  • no clear long term effects - no assessments in midteens - no adulthood affect shown
83
Q

Bucharest Early intervention project for institutionalisation conclusion

A

-Institutionalisation more likely to experience disorganised attachment

84
Q

How does early attachment effect relationships in later childhood?
-Myron-Wilson + Smith

A

-(196 questionnaires = children 7-11 in London)
Secure = best friendships (unlikely bullying)
Insecure avoidant = friendship difficulties (bully victims)
Insecure resistant = bully’s

85
Q

3 influences of early attachment

A
  • later childhood
  • adulthood with romantic partners
  • adulthood as a parent
86
Q

How does early attachment effect relationships in adulthood as a parent?
-Bailey et al

A

(99 mothers to babies + own mothers using SS + interviews)

found same attachment with both

87
Q

Weaknesses of influence of early attachment on later relationships

A
  • Issues with validity - a lot of studies use self report techniques (e.g. Hazan + Shaver) - relies on accurate recollection + honesty
  • attachment evidence is mixed - McCarthy doesn’t support continuity -HOWEVER- Zimmerman (2000) = little relationship quality between infant + adolescent attachment -limitation as not what we would expect if IWM was important in development
  • Studies suggest infant attachment type causes attachment - HOWEVER- there are other continuity explanations e.g. parenting style or child’s temperament - counteracts Bowlby’s view that IWM caused these outcomes

Psych paper 1 miss g (6 decks)

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