Attachment evaluations Flashcards
Caregiver- infant interactions
1+, 1-
+infants don’t act on demand characteristics
-difficulty in reliability for testing infant behaviours, don’t know the purpose of behaviour
Schaffer + Emerson
1+, 3-
+high ecological validity as was done in infants homes
-issues with validity as they based their stages on reports from mothers, who may not have been honest
-low population validity as used infants from the same social class + same location (Glasgow)
-cultural variations, only relevant for individualist cultures eg. UK or USA
Lorenz
2+,2-
+research evidence eg. Guiton exposed chicks to rubber gloves within critical period + became imprinted on the gloves. Supports animals aren’t born with predisposition to imprint on specific object
+Important information gained, eg. idea of critical period influenced Bowlby’s idea of critical period in humans. Lorenz’s findings could be extrapolated to humans
-difficulty generalising from birds to humans eg. humans don’t imprint
-Lorenz’s conclusions about imprinting having permanent consequences for mating was challenged by Guiton who fond chicks imprinted on rubber gloves, but learned to mate with other chicks
Harlow
1+,3-
+Practical applications eg. findings useful for zoos to know how to keep monkeys
-monkeys suffered, unethical
-confounding variable, surrogate mother’s heads were different
-Monkeys more similar than humans to geese, however still difficult to generalise
Learning theory
1+3-
+lots of opportunities for reinforcement eg. babies fed 2000 times mainly be main carer, giving lots of opportunity for association of removal of hunger, supports idea attachment learned through operant conditioning
-other factors also act as reinforcers not just food eg. attentiveness and responsiveness, meaning isn’t a complete theory
-Contradicting research eg. Harlow found contact comfort more important than food
-Alternative explanations eg. attachment is innate + evolutionary function like suggested by Bowlby
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
2+2-
+supportive research eg. Harlow supports internal working models as monkeys were inadequate mothers
+supportive research eg. Hazan + Shaver, love quiz, found securely attached had happier longer lasting relationships
-Contradicting evidence eg. Schaffer and Emerson found multiple attachment was the norm eg. 31% formed multiple attachments
-alternative explanation eg. Kagan temperament hypothesis, found innate temperamental characteristics influenced later relationships. Attachment explained by infant behaviour not PCG sensitivity
Strange situation
2+3-
+high inter-rater reliability- Bick et al found 84% agreement
+lab study, controlled
-Another attachment type eg. Main + Solomon suggested disorganised attachment which is a mix of avoidant and resistant, MA classifications may not be valid
-lacks validity as only assesses attachment to mother
-culture bound, done in America so can’t be generalised to countries outside of western Europe or USA
Cross cultural differences
2+2-
+Use of meta analysis is ethically sound as doesn’t involve collecting new data
+Practical applications, first large scale comparison of attachment types, significantly developed our understanding
-Strange situation is ethnocentric, based on American norms, so only useful when studying western children, inappropriate to use on non-western children as doesn’t take into account culturally specific elements
-Not representative eg. some countries only analysed small number of studies eg. China= 1 study , America=18 studies.
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
2+3-
+Supportive research eg. 44 juvenile thieves. Bowlby studied 88 children, 44 thieves. Found 14 thieves= affectionless psychopaths. 86% affectionless psychopaths experienced frequent early separation from mothers
+Supported by Harlow
-Contradicting research eg. Lewis replicated 44 thieves study. Found prolonged separation from mother didn’t predict criminality, suggests other factors may effect it
-research shown damage isn’t inevitable if deprived during critical period, if child has social interaction and good aftercare
-Rutter claimed Bowlby was muddling deprivation with privation, Rutter suggests sever long term damage more likely result of privation
Effects of institutionalisation
2+2-
+Practical applications eg. enhanced understanding of effects of institutionalisation, with results leading to improvements in way children are cared for in institutions
+no confounding variables, children hadn’t experienced trauma prior to institutionalisation, so just effects of institutionalisation can be measured, increasing validity
-Studies are limited as can’t conclude if children suffered long term effects. Children may lag behind in school but catch up as adults, until we have data about development in adulthood we can’t be certain about long term effects
-Conditions in Romanian orphans were so bad its difficult to generalise to other situations of deprivation. Romanian orphanages had low standards of care + low levels of intellectual stimulation
Love quiz
1+3-
+supportive research eg. Simpson assessed infant attachment at 1 year old, found securely attached had closer friends at 16 and more emotionally attached to romantic partner in adulthood
-Correlational, can’t state cause and effect
-Quiz uses self-report, people may be dishonest to make themselves look good, reducing validity
-volunteer bias as put in newspaper
