Attachment Evaluation Flashcards
Lorenz evaluation
limitation- Sluckin replicated the study using ducklings and found that when they were kept in isolation beyond the critical period they were still able to imprint therefore it must be a sensitive period rather than a critical one
limitation- Guiton found that when chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves and tried to mate with them as adults they eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens which shows that imprinting does not have a permanent effect on mating behaviour
Harlow evaluation
strength- highly valued research as it shows that attachment does not develop as a result of feeding but comfort so it shows the importance of quality early relationships for later social development
strength- practical applications as it helps social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse
Learning theory of attachment evaluation
strength- insight into how a baby forms attachment with its parent so it helps to increase the attachment especially between baby and father
limitation- Schaffer and Emerson found that in 39% of cases the primary attachment figure was not the person who fed them and many infants attach to parents who neglect or abuse them so food is not a key factor
limitation- Harlows research contradicts this theory as he found monkeys formed an attachment with the cloth mother that provided comfort rather than the wire mother that provided food
Bowlby’s monotropic theory evaluation
strength- the internal working model is supported by Bailey who assessed the attachment of 99 mothers to their babies and their own mothers and found that majority had the same attachment classification
limitation- sensitive period rather than critical as children in isolation can go on to form attachments with adoptive parents
limitation- Schaffer and Emerson found that by 10 months of age most babies have formed multiple attachments therefore children do not form a monotropic bond
Caregiver-infant interactions evaluation
strength- Evans and Porter found in 101 infants and their mothers that babies who were securely attached has the most reciprocal interactions which shows that caregiver interactions play a vial role in forming attachments
strength- Meltzoff and Moore found that infants aged 2-3 weeks mimicked adults facial expressions and hand movements therefore caregiver interactions are innate and used to aid the formation of attachments
limitation- cultural variations e.g. Kenyan mothers have little interaction with their infant but they have a high proportion of secure attachments therefore the research could be ethnocentric
Schaffer and Emerson stages of attachment evaluation
limitation- cultural variations as there is evidence from collectivist cultures that babies are capable from forming multiple attachments from birth
limitation- it is very difficult to measure behaviour of young children and it is based on assumptions e.g. when a baby cries after the mother has left the room we assume it is because they are attached to her but it could be because they are tired or hungry
strength- good external validity as the study took place in the families’ own homes during ordinary activities so the baby was unaffected by the presence of observers
The role of the father evaluation
limitation- studies found that children growing up without a father do not develop any differently therefore they do not have a significant impact on childrens development
limitation- evolutionary psychologists argue that women are biologically predisposed to be more nurturing due to oestrogen so they are more caring and more likely to be the primary caregiver
strength- fathers support the role of the mother as they have a role focused on play and entertainment which allows the mother to have a break from childcare
Ainsworth’s strange situation evaluation
strength- it is a reliable measure of attachment as it takes place under controlled conditions and the behavioural categories are easy to observe. Bick found an inter-rater reliability of 94% babies’ attachment types
limitation- lacks ecological validity as it is an unrealistic situation e.g. the children may cry less in a familiar environment and so the attachment types may be exaggerated and not applied correctly
limitation- culturally biased as it is based on American attachment behaviours and child rearing practices e.g. Japanese infants are rarely separated from their parents and so would be wrongly classified due to imposed etic
Cultural variations in attachment evaluation
strength- large sample of nearly 2000 mothers and babies so it reduces the impact of poor methodology
limitation- limited number of studies in some countries as the majority was conducted in USA e.g. 18 in America and only one in China so it is difficult to generalise findings to the world from one country
limitation- culturally biased as the study was designed by an American based on a British theory and is used to judge infants worldwide which is an example of imposed etic
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation evaluation
strength- supporting evidence from Harlows study as monkeys who were deprived from their mothers were abusive to their offspring and antisocial therefore supporting the view that maternal deprivation has detrimental effects on development
limitation- contradictory evidence from Guatemalan Indians who’s children experience deprivation but do not experience any social or intellectual impairment
limitation- Koluchova found that twin boys from Czech who were isolated then later adopted by loving adults were able to recover therefore it is a sensitive period not critical period
Romanian Orphan studies evaluation
strength- real life applications as orphanages now avoid having large number of caregivers and try to ensure that each child is assigned a key worker to avoid disinhibited attachment
strength- allows psychologists to study the effects of institutionalisation without the confounding variables of other orphan studies so there is a higher internal validity
limitation- the long term effects of institutionalisation are not known as the children who currently lag behind may catch up as adults equally the children who have no problems now may have emotional problems as adults
Adult relationships evaluation
limitation- most of the research is based on correlational evidence so cause and effect cannot be established and there is no control over extraneous variables such as negative life events which could influence future relationships too
limitation- studies on attachment types and adult relationships are based on self-report measures which are retrospective so can be unreliable due to forgetting or be influenced by social desriability bias
limitation- it is not fair to say that all children who have a poor relationship with their parents are doomed to experience unhealthy relationships as adults and attachments as children may not be long lasting as adults have the cognitive ability to reflect on our past and change/ avoid these
