Attachment part 2

Question 1

State 3 studies that look into cultural variations.

Answer 1

1. Van Ijzendoorn
2. Silmonella et al
3. Jin et al

Question 2

What was the aim of Van ijzendoorns study?

Answer 2

To investigate the proportions of secure, insecure avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries.
2. To investigate variations within a culture

Question 3

What was the procedure of Van Ijzendoorns study?

Answer 3

1. Located 32 studies of attachment, that used Strange Situation
2. Studies took place in 8 different countries, with 15 of studies in America
3. Results from 1990 children, in 32 studies, were meta-analysed, results being combined and weighted for sample size

Question 4

What were the findings of Van’s study?

Answer 4

1. In all countries, secure was most common attachment but ranged from 75% in Britain to 50% in China
2. Insecure resistant was least common, but ranged from 3% in Britain to 30% in Israel
3. Insecure avoidant were observed most commonly in Germany and least commonly in Japan

Question 5

What were the findings for Van’s study, in which he looked at variations within the same culture

Answer 5

results of studies within the same culture were 150% higher than those between countries
- e.g. In USA, one sample showed 46% securely attached compared to 90% in other sample

Question 6

Describe the aim, procedure and findings of Simmoneli’s study?

Answer 6

1. Aim - to see whether proportions of babies (in Italy) of different attachment types is same as other studies
2. Procedure - Assessed 76 12 month old babies using Strange Situation
3. Findings - 50% securely attached, 36% insecure avoidant

Question 7

What did Simmoneli conclude?

Answer 7

As securely attached figure was lower than usual, mothers in Italy work longer hours.
- This suggests that cultural differences affect attachment types

Question 8

Give a conclusion for cultural variation studies overall

Answer 8

Secure attachment is norm for every country, suggesting idea that attachment is innate and universal but it also shows that cultural variations do affect attachment types

Question 9

Evaluate the cultural variations-attachment theory

Answer 9

Strengths
- High internal validity: Large samples used, which reduce impact of anomalous results

Limitations

• Tend to be unrepresentative of culture: Can’t compare countries as cultures could affect attachment e.g. with poverty
• Biased Method of assessment: Strange situation and Bowlby’s theory based on Anglo-American culture. Can’t be applied to all cultures e.g. insecure-avoidant could be ‘independence’ in Germany, not avoidance
• Alternative Explanation: Attachment spreads due to mass media that advocate similar ‘parenting styles’, not that it is ‘innate’ and ‘universal’
• Effect of Temperament

Question 10

Define internal working model

Answer 10

The mental representations we all carry with us from our attachment to our primary caregiver. They are important in affecting our future relationships because they carry our perception of what relationships are like

Question 11

Describe how attachment links to relationships in later childhood

Answer 11

Securly attached infants tend to go on to form the best quality childhood friendships whilst insecure attached infants tend to later have friendship difficulties

Question 12

Describe the procedure and findings of a study that looks into attachment & relationships in later CHILDHOOD

Answer 12

Myrson-Wilson and Smith
- Used questionnaires to asses 196 children aged 7-11

Findings

• insecure resistant = bullies
• Insecure avoidant = victims

Question 13

Describe the procedure and findings of Hazan and Shavers love quiz

Answer 13

Procedure

• 620 questionnaire replies
  2. Had 3 sections:
• current or most important relationship
• general love experiences e.g. number of partners
• Attachment type

Question 14

Describe the findings of Hazan and Shavers love quiz

Answer 14

1. 56% securely attached, 25% insecure avoidant, 19% insecure resistant
2. Securely attached most likely to have good and long-lasting relationships
   - Avoidant likely to show jealousy and fear of intimacy

Question 15

Describe the produce and findings of Bailey et al’s study

Answer 15

1. Looked at attachment of 99 mothers with their children, and with own mothers
2. Used strange situation for mother-baby relationship, and used interview for mother-mother relationship

Majority of women had same attachment classification both to their babies and their own mothers

Question 16

Evaluate the effect of attachment on later relationships?

Answer 16

Limitations

• Evidence on continuity of attachment type is mixed: Zimmerman found no correlation between attachment type and later relationships
• Demand characteristics: Most studies use interviews/questionnaires so validity issues present
• Just a correlation: Parenting styles/temperament could have a direct effect on later relationships
• The influence of early attachment isnt deterministic: People only have a greater RISK of bad later relationships (its probabilistic)
• Self report is conscious, but internal working models are not: Therefore, We can’t self-report IWM’s direct effects on later relationships

Question 17

What is maternal deprivation?

Answer 17

The emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their maternal figure

Question 18

What was Bowlby’s argument in his theory of maternal deprivation?

Answer 18

The continued presence of nurture from a maternal figure is essential for the psychological development of babies and toddlers, both emotionally and intellectually
2. Being separated from mother in early childhood may have serious consequences (maternal deprivation)

Question 19

What is the difference between separation and deprivation?

Answer 19

Separation just means when a child is not in the presence of their primary attachment figure. This is only a problem if the child is deprived of an element of mothers care
- Extended separations can lead to deprivation, which is harmful

Question 20

What is the critical period to build an attachment with the maternal figure?

Answer 20

First 30 months of life

Question 21

State 2 effects of maternal deprivation?

Answer 21

1. Intellectual development

2. Emotional development

Question 22

Explain how maternal deprivation affects intellect?

REFER TO A STUDY

Answer 22

If a child is deprived of maternal care in institutions, they may suffer delayed intellectual development e.g. Low IQ (Goldfarb 1947)

Question 23

Explain how maternal deprivation affects emotional development?

Answer 23

They experience affectionless psychopathy so may not experience guilt and remorse for others e.g. victims of crimes

Question 24

What study investigated a link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation

Answer 24

Bowlby’s 44 thieves study

Question 25

Describe the procedure of the 44 thieves study?

Answer 25

1. 44 criminal teenagers, accused of stealing, wree interviewed to assess signs of affectionless psychopathy (lack of affection/guilt for actions)
2. Early separations established through interviews with parents
3. Control group of non-criminal, but emotionally disturbed teenagers used for comparison

Question 26

Describe the findings of the 44 thieves study

Answer 26

1. 12 out of the 14 affectionless psychopaths experienced prolonged separation compared to the 2 out of the 44 in the control group

Question 27

What did Bowlby conclude from his 44 thieves study?

Answer 27

He concluded that prolonged, early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy

Question 28

Evaluate the theory of maternal deprivation

Answer 28

Strengths
- Levy’s rats: Social development of rats were affected when they were separated from their mothers

Limitations

• Poor evidence: Sources of evidence came from institutions with poor quality care. This couldve been of later development problems]
• Experimenter Bias (44 Thieves): Bowlby carried out assessments, knowing what he expected to find
• Counter evidence: Hilda Lewis found no significant link between early prolonged separation and affectionless psychopathy
• Critical period is too fixed
• Deprivation vs Privation: Bowlby doesnt distinguish between 2 terms. Long term affects could be the effect of privation, not deprivation

Question 29

What is the difference between deprivation and privation?

Answer 29

• Deprivation = When an attachment is formed, but later broken
• Privation = No attachment is formed in the first place

Question 30

What was the aim of Rutter’s ERA study and the Bucharest Early Intervention Project study?

Answer 30

To test the effects of institutionalisation

Question 31

What was the procedure used in the ERA study?

Answer 31

1. Londitudinal study of the cognitive and social development of orphans adopted in England
2. Assessed behaviour of 165 Romanian orphans and 52 British orphans (control group)

Question 32

What were the findings of the ERA study?

Answer 32

1. -Those adopted before 6 months had mean IQ of 102
   - Those adopted 6 months - 2 years had mean IQ of 86
   - those adopted after 2 years had mean IQ of 77
2. Those adopted after 6 months had signs of disinhibited attachment

Question 33

What did Rutter et al conclude from their study?

Answer 33

They concluded that there are long-lasting effects of not forming attachments within the critical period

Question 34

Define institutionalisation

Answer 34

The effects of spending significant time in an orphanage/childrens home

Question 35

What are the 2 main effects of institutionalisation?

Answer 35

1. Disinhibited attachment

2. mental retardation

Question 36

Define disinhibited attachment?

Answer 36

Type of attachment where child shows symptoms of attention seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar

Question 37

What was the procedure of Zeanah et al’s study

Answer 37

1. Assessed attachment in 95 institutionalised children, using the Strange Situation
2. Used control group of 50 uninstitutionalised kids

Question 38

What were the findings of Zeanah et al’s study?

Answer 38

1. Only 19% of the institutionalised kids were securely attached
2. Disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to 20% with the control group

Question 39

Evaluate the studies/theory of institutionalisation

Answer 39

Strengths

• real life application: Allowed improvement regarding care in institutions. And children now have key workers to build attachment with, to avoid disinhibited attachments
• High internal validity: In Romanian orphan study, no extraneous variables e.g. child experiencing loss trauma before being institutionalised.

Limitations

• Cant generalise: Standard of care in Romanian orphanages were so bad that it’s hard to generalise to better quality institutions
• Confounding variable: In Rutter study ,children weren’t randomly assigned so children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones
• Long-term effects aren’t clear: Children adopted later may catch up in IQ when they grow up. Equally, early adopted children may experience emotional problems as adults