Attachment part 2 Flashcards
what was the procedure of Rutter and Sonuga - Barke (2010)
ERA
led a study on Romanian orphans since early 1990s called ERA, this study included orphans who spent time in an institution and therefore suffered from the effects of institutionalisation
of the group 111 were adopted before the age of 2 and 54 before the age of 4
the adopetes were tested at the ages of 4,6,11,15 to assess their physical cognitive and social development they also got information form teachers and parents
this information was compared with 52 children adopted in UK before the age of 6 months
What was the findings of Rutter and Sonuga-Barke (2010)
at the time of adoption the Romanian orphans lagged behind in everything - they were smaller,weighed less and some were categorised as mentally retarded
by the age of 4 some had caught up to the british adoptees but this mainly happened if they were adopted before the age of 6 months
beyond the age of 6 months significant deficits remained - they had disinhibited attachment, peer relationship problems
this showed that the long term consequences were less serve if the children had a chance to form an attachment (adopted before 6 months) but were more serve if they did not form an attachment
What were the other studies of Romanian orphans
- Le Mare and Audet - 36 orphan studies to adopted families in Canada, the dependent variable was health and physical growth, by 4.5 years they were still smaller but by 10.5 they were the same size
- Zeanan et al - 136 Romanian children who spent 90% of lives in an institution and control group who had never been in one, 12-31 months and assessed by strange situation - disinhibited attachment shown in instituitionised orphans
What are the effects of institutionalism?
- physical underdevelopment - smaller, Gardner 1972 stated that lack of emotional care rather than poor nourishment is the cause of what has been called deprivation dwarfism
- intellectual under functioning - cognitive development is also effected by emotional deprivation
- disinhibited attachment - a form of insecure attachment, children do not discriminate between people and attachment figures - over friendly and attention seeking
- poor parenting - quiton et al - 50 women raised in an institution compared with 50 reared at home - institutionalised found it hard being at home
evaluation of Romanian orphans : individual differences
some studys say that individulas who do not form a primary attachment within a sensitive period are unable to recover
- in all studies some children are not as affected as others and there are differences for example Rutter said that some children received special attention maybe because they smiled more therefore they had some attachemnts this meant that individual differences could cause the difference in institutionalised children having normal attachments rather than disinhibited attachment
- Bowlby showed that there were individual differences in the way that children coped
evaluation of Romanian orphans : Real-life application
improved how children were cared for in hospitals
- in romanain orphan studies mothers were previously told to hold on to their infants for a while therefore the period of attachment may have passed making it harder for the infants to form secure attachments
- singer et al - children are just attached to adoptive families
evaluation of Romanian orphans : value of longitudinal study
- follow children for many years, takes a lot of time and planning and waiting for results but it shows how the effects of institutionalism disappear over time with high quality care
- the effects may still be disappearing when they do there last result so may not cover the whole picture
evaluation of Romanian orphan studies : deprivation is only one factor
- physical conditions were as bad as emotional care
- lack of cognitive stimulation would also effect there development
- Turner and Lloyd suggested that damage only occurs when there are multiple risk factors such as poor care in infancy then more poor care living in poverty and parental disharmony
Evaluation of Romanian orphan studies: institutionalisation may cause slow development
- at the last assessment at age 11 a lower number of children had disinhibited attachment
- proved the effects disappear over time with good care
- need to mature sufficiently and learn how to cope with relationships
- criticism as it implies that effects may be reversible which is not true
- Le Mare and Audet - by age 11 may not have improved but ,at have not reached their full potential
What was Ainsworth interested in
Ainsworth was more interested with the different types of attachment that infants form with their care givers these types of style were seen as patterns of thinking and feeling
What was the aim of strange situation
the aim was to see how infants behaved under conditions of mild stress and novelty
What are the different types of attachment
secure attachment (type B) insecure resistant (type C), insecure resistant(Type A)
Describe what happens in strange situation
- research room was a 9x9 foot space marked off into 16 squarews to record the infants movement, desgined by using 8 epsidoes to highlight certain behaviours
1. separation from caregiver
2. reunion with caregiver
3. response to a stranger
4. the novel environment which aims to encourage exploration and test the secure base concept
5. the data is collected by a group of observers using a video recorder or a two way mirror they would record every 15 seconds then use behavioural categories scaling them 1-7
What were the findings of strange situations
combined data from 106 different studies using middle class families, they noted the similarities and differences and found different attachment types
describe secure attachment (Type B)
- calm interaction with the caregiver
- wont cry if caregiver leaves the room
- cry if left with a stranger
- soothed by bodily contact
- uses caregiver as a secure base to function independently
- seek and are comfortable with social interaction
Describe insecure - avoidant (Type A)
- avoid social interaction intimacy
- show little response to separation
- do not seek proximity when reunited
- show no tendency to cling or resist to be put down
- high level of anxiousness
- happy to explore without caregiver
Describe insecure-resistant (Type C)
- seek and resist intimacy and social interaction
- respond to separation immediately and with intense distress
- act similarly towards strangers
- display conflicting desires for contact on reunion
What percentage of infects are
A, secure attached
B, insecure-avoidant
C, insecure-resistant
A 66%
B 22%
C 12%