ATTACHMENT EVALUATION Flashcards
Evaluate caregiver-infant interactions.
2- and 1+
Weakness: Hard to know what happening when observing infants.
-Many studies have shown the same patterns of interaction between mothers and infants. (Gratier 2003).
-However – observed is hand movements +changes of expressions.
-Difficult to be certain what is taking place from infants’ perspective.
-E.g is infants imitation conscious and deliberate?
-Cannot know for sure that mother infant interactions have a special meaning.
Strength: Controlled observations capture fine detail.
-Mother-infant observation = well controlled, often both filmed from multiple angles.
-Fine detail of behavior recorded and analysed.
-babies unaware of observation, no demand characteristics.
-Strengthens validity of research.
Weakness:
-Feldman (2012) - synchrony just describes behaviors that happen at the same time.
-Behavior remains invariant, can be reliably observed, not particularly useful, does not tell us their purpose.
-However, evidence – reciprocity and synchrony help develop mother infant attachment.
-Helps development of stress response, empathy, langauge, moral development.
Evaluate attachment figures.
3-
Weakness: Inconsistent findings on fathers.
-Different research questions on fathers have produced different findings.
-Psychologist interested in father as primary attachment figure = find fathers can take maternal role.
-Research on them as secondary attachment figures = different behaviour to mother, but have a distinct role.
-Problem, not a simple answer to role of father.
Weakness: If fathers have a distinct role why aren’t children without fathers different?
-Grossman (2002) - fathers – secondary attachment figures – important role in children’s development.
-MacCallum and Golombok (2004) - children with single or same-sex parents – don’t develop different form those with heterosexual families.
-suggests fathers role in secondary attachment not important.
Weakness: Why don’t fathers generally become primary attachments.
-Could be result of traditonal gender roles – don’t believe they should act that way.
-Could be female hormones (oestrogen) - high levels of nuturing – women – biologically predisposed as primary attachment figure.
Evaluate Schaffer and Emersons study.
2+ and 1-
Strength: Good external validity.
-observation in families’ own homes, done by parents during ordinary activities.
-Behavior of babies unaffected by presence of observers.
-Behaved naturally.
-Good external validity.
Strength: Longitudinal design.
-same children observed regularly.
-Alternative – cross-sectional design.
-Longitudinal – better internal validity.
-Gets rid of confounding variables of individual differences.
Weakness: Limited sample characteristics.
-Sample – 60 babies.
-all families from same district and social class, and same city.
-Study 50 years ago.
-Child-rearing varies from one culture to another, and one historical period to another.
-Cannot generalize to other social + historical contexts.
Evaluate Stages of attachment theory.
3-
Weakness: Problem studying asocial stage.
-1st few weeks – asocial stage.
Babies – poor coordination – immobile.
-not much behavior to observe.
-Difficult to judge that they are not social – there feelings and cognitions good be social – unable to express this.
Weakness: Conflicting evidence on multiple attachments.
-Not clear when children can form multiple attachments.
-some research indicates most form single attachment before they can form multiple (Bowlby, 1969).
-Research in cultural contexts where multiple caregivers are the norm (collectivist cultures) – find multiple attachments from outset (van IJzendoorn et al. 1993).
Weakness: Measuring multiple attachments.
-Babies separation anxiety does not mean the person they are separated from is the true attachment figure.
-Bowlby (1969) - Children show distress even when their playmate leaves the room – distress does not signify attachment.
-Limitation of Schafer + Emersons attachment stages – cannot distinguish between behavior shown towards secondary attachment figures and play mates.
Evaluate Lorenzo’s research.
2-
Weakness: Generalizability to humans.
-Imprinting in birds.
-Findings influenced understanding of human development.
-Cannot generalize – mammalian attachment system – different to birds.
-Mammalian – more emotional attachment.
-mammals are more able to form attachments later.
-Not appropriate to generalize Lorenzo’s research.
Weakness: Some of Lorenzos observations have been questioned.
-Questioned: Idea imprinting has a permanent effect on matting behavior.
-Guiton et al. (1996) chicken imprinted on washing up gloves – later try to mate them.
-But – experience – learned to mate with other chickens.
-Not as permanent as Lorenzo thought.
Evaluate Harlow research.
2+ and 1-
Strength: Theoretical Value.
-Improved understanding of human mother-infant attachment.
-Showed attachment is a result of contact and comfort – not food.
-Importance of quality of early relationships – to later social development -Hold down relationship + successfully rear own children.
Strength: Practical Value.
-Application to a range of practical contexts.
-Social workers understand the risk factor of child abuse + neglect. - knew to intervene and prevent it.
-Care of captive monkeys – importance of proper attachment figures baby zoo monkeys + breeding programs in the wild.
Weakness: Ethical issues.
-Monkeys suffered – Harlow’s procedures.
-Similar enough to humans to generalize findings – suffering very human-like.
-Counter argument – Harlow’s research is important enough to justify the effects.
Evaluate the learning theory of attachment.
3-
Weakness: counter evidence from animal research.
-Animals don’t necessarily attach to those who feed them.
-Lorenzo’s geese imprinted before fed, remained attached to imprinter, no matter who fed them.
-Harlow’s monkey preferred soft surrogate to wire monkey that fed it.
-Attachment does not develop because of feeding.
-Meaning human attachment is not food motivated.
Weakness: Counter evidence from human research.
-Research with human infants – feeding not important in human attachment.
-Schaffer and Emerson – primary Attachment developed to biological mother – even when other cares fed them.
-Limitation – feeding not a key element in attachment.
-No unconditioned stimulus or primary drive involved.
Weakness: Learning theory ignores other factors associated with forming attachments.
-Research – early caregiver-infant interaction – factors: reciprocity and interactional synchrony.
-Best quality attachments = caregiver pick up and responding to infant signals.
-Findings do not support the idea of cupboard love.
Evaluate Bowlby’s theory.
1- and 2+
Weakness: Mixed evidence for monotropy.
-Bowlby believed primary attachment was special/different from others.
-Primary had to be established for multiple attachments to take place.
-Not supported by Schaffer and Emerson (1964) - most babies did attach 1 person first – but – significant minority formed multiple attachments simultaneously.
-Something unique about 1st? - mother is more important in predicting later behavior – but could just mean primary attachment is stronger – not unique.
Strength: Support for social releasers.
-Brazelton et al. Observed interactional synchrony between mothers and babies.
-extended observation to experiment.
-Primary attachment figures instructed to ignore babies’ signals (ignore social releasers).
-Initially, showed some distress – after continued ignoring, some responded by curling up and lying motionless.
-Such strong response supports Baddley’s idea.
Strength: Support for working memory models.
-Bowlby predicts patterns of attachment passed from one generation to the next.
-Bailey et al (2007) - 99 mother, 1 yr. old babies – assed quality of attachment.
-Used a standard interview procedure.
-Assed via observation as well.
-Those assed to have poor attachments to their own parents more likely to have children classified as poor attachments according to observations.
-Supports internal working model.
