Attachment [U3] Flashcards
1
Q
Baby Interpretation
A
- Babies have poor co-ordination and are immobile
- Hand Movements and subtle expression changes
- Hard to discern motive and interpret behaviours
- Cannot be sure there is any special meaning associated with them, or if they’re random
2
Q
Interactions as meaningless patterns (Feldman Vs. Isabella)
A
- Observation doesn’t signify developmental importance of behaviour
- Int. Synch. and reciprocity are just behaviour patterns (Feldman)
- They exist, but don’t have evident purpose
+ Also used to critique asocial conclusions in stages
3
Q
Benefits of filming
A
- Research filmed in controlled lab settings
- Minimises distractions for baby
- Can analyse behaviours later to prevent missing of key details
- Multiple-observers can watch video, enabling easy inter-observer reliability
- Babies are unlikely to change behaviour based on being observed, because baby no demand characteristic
- Data collected is reliable AND valid
4
Q
External Validity of Schaffer & Emerson (+CP)
A
- Observations made by PARENTS during EVERYDAY ACTIVITIES
- Having researchers present would distract babies or cause anxiety
- Likely that babies behaved naturally, making results very generalisable
BUT
- Mothers aren’t objective reporters
- Biassed in their noticing and reporting
- Not have noticed baby anxiety or misremembered is
- Even if the behaviour is naturally valid, the reporting may not be accurate
5
Q
Daycare applications of S&E
A
- In asocial & indiscriminate stages, child can be comforted by any skilled adult
- Day care (or starting day care), with an unfamiliar adult during the specific stage could be problematic
- Parents are informed, aware of issues and can plan their future day care to streamline issues out
6
Q
Incongruent Research Questions on Father
A
- Lack of clarity in research question
- Secondary attachment, Primary attachment, unique role
- Findings vary based on question
- Filling primary role vs. unique secondary role
- Convoluted question leads to a convoluted answer, which changes based on what is being asked
7
Q
McCallum & Golombok on father’s role
A
- Fathers have a unique secondary role that is important in child development (Grosman et al.)
- Children raised in single-mother/lesbian-parent families do not develop differently from those in traditional families (McC & G.)
- Provides conflicting evidence on father’s unique role and means it goes unanswered
> > CP on nuclear families having unique role and others adapting to fill role
8
Q
Advice from role of father research
A
- Role decisions can lead to parental stress and pressure, affecting choices around children
- Research can offer reassuring advice to children
- Father is capable of being primary attachment (Single fathers) and not having a father doesn’t affect development (Single mothers)
- Research reduces parental anxiety
9
Q
Regolin and Vallotigara on Lorenz
A
- Research support for imprinting
- Chicks exposed to simple moving shape combinations (E.g. cracked out spinning triangle)
- When exposed later on to a range of combinations, they followed the ones most similar to the original combination the closest
10
Q
Lorenz’s Generalisability
A
- Mammal attachment is very different to bird attachment
- Human mothers show more emotional reactions to their offspring
- Also able to form an attachment after the first few hours of birth
- Increased general understanding, but can’t be extrapolated to human population
11
Q
Howe on Harlow’s Work
A
- Knowledge from Harlow informs social workers and clinical psychologists (Howe)
- Lack of a binding experience is a risk factor for poor child development (Howe)
- Allows identification of optimal intervention criteria and the prevention of poor child development (Howe)
- Practical application in captive monkey breeding programmes
- RWA
12
Q
Harlow’s ethics
A
- Early age emotional separation in monkeys
- If similar enough to be generalisable, the psychological harm caused must also be similar
- Is the insight gained justifiable?
13
Q
Lorenz & Harlow Vs. Dollard & Miller
A
- Goslings attached before feeding (Lorenz)
- Monkeys spent 18-19 hours on cloth mother Vs. 1 hour on wire mother
- Gained comfort from cloth mother when frightened
- Contact comfort is more important than food source
14
Q
Schaffer, Emerson & Isabella et al. Vs. Dollard & Miller
A
- Babies form attachments to mother regardless of who feeds them (Schaffer & Emerson)
- High levels of int. synch. linked to high quality attachment (Isabella et al.)
- They don’t relate to food, so suggest another main factor
15
Q
Conditioning in attachment
A
- Food isn’t important, but conditioning is
- Baby associates feeling warm and comfortable with an adult
- Influences choice of attachment figure
- Still useful in understanding developments
16
Q
Bailey et al. on the IWM
A
- Research support for the IWM
- Compared mother attachment to infant against their attachment to their primary attachment figure
- Poor infant attachment linked to poor primary attachment
- Mother’s ability to attach to infant is based on IWM
17
Q
Kornienko on the IWM
A
- Other influences on social development
- Genetic differences affect anxiety and social ability, affecting social behaviour
- Can also impact parenting ability (Kornienko)
- Bowlby has overstated the importance of the IWM and neglected other factors
18
Q
Schaffer & Emerson against Monotropy
A
- Unclear evidence for first attachment being special and unique
- Significant minority forms multiple attachments first (Schaffer & Emerson)
- Does appear to influence later life significantly, but stronger effect doesn’t mean difference in quality
- Bowlby is incorrect about it having a unique quality
19
Q
Bick et al. on Ainsworth
A
- Good inter-rater reliability
- 94% agreement between observers
- Took place in strict, controlled conditions and used video recordings
- Confident that the identified attachment types aren’t based on subjective interpretation
20
Q
Takahashi on Ainsworth
A
- Developed in US/England
- Imposes its etic on other cultures
- In one Japanese study, high levels of separation anxiety were observed, leading to a disproportionate ratio of insecure-resistant attachments (Takahashi)
- Not due to insecurity, but the cultural norm of mother and infant rarely being separated in the country
- Reasons that different cultures cause different baby experiences, which impacts behaviour
21
Q
Main & Solomon on Ainsworth
A
- Identified disorganised type (D) with resistant and avoidant behaviours
- Ainsworth’s categorisation is incomplete
- Type D is unusual and a result of severe neglect/abuse
- Ainsworth is useful for normal/common attachment types, but neglects more extreme or rare forms of attachment
22
Q
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s sample
A
- Effective sample of 2000 primary attachment figure-infant pairs
- Increases internal validity
- Reduces impact of anomalous results due to bad methodology or unusual participants
23
Q
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s researchers
A
- Researchers were indigenous
- Takahashi in Japan, Grossman in Germany
- Negates the impact of misinterpretation of behaviour or norms on research results
- Overcomes the language barrier which could cause difficulties in understanding participants and collecting data
- Increases data validity
24
Q
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s Imposed Etic
A
- Imposed etic = tool design in one culture, applied to another
- Strange Situation is American and biassed
- Moderate anxiety indicates a secure, healthy attachment
- Lack of sep. anxiety and pleasure on reunion is seen as independent and “secure” by german standards (Grossman & Grossman)
- Infants not measured by their cultures standards, and are incorrectly categorised
- SS lacks validity
25
Q
Koluchova’s Czech twins on the critical period
A
- Extreme abuse and neglect between 18 months & 7 years
- Had Rickets, an IQ of 40 and no language
- Eventually adopted and received excellent aftercare
- They were completely “normal” by the age of being a teenager
26
Q
Levy et al. on maternal deprivation
A
- Support from animal studies
- Compared rats isolated from mothers as pups VS. rats reared with mothers
- Isolated pups expressed consistent deficits in learning around social interactions, including less rapid responses in tests for maternal behaviour
- These lack generalisability, but are good support for the basic systems of maternal deprivation
27
Q
Flawed evidence of Bowlby’s deprivation theory
A
- Poor quality evidence basis
- Bowlby did the thief interviews personally
- Bias in results
- Goldfarb studied wartime orphans
- Confounding variables of trauma
- Obfuscates the IV-DV relationship and the results’ internal validity
28
Q
ERA study’s lack of confounding variables
A
- Previous studies had varying trauma
- Bereavement, physical abuse, neglect effects all hard to separate from institutional care
- Romanian’s handed over by loving parents unable to afford them
- Higher internal validity, since results aren’t confounded by other negative experiences
29
Q
Applying research into institutionalisation (Langdon)
A
- Improves conditions for children outside of family homes
- Improved understanding of institutionalisation effects improves our ability to prevent those effects (Langdon)
- Changed the system to have 1/2 key care workers per child and opt for foster/adoptive care over institutional care
- Increases chances of children inc are developing normally
30
Q
ERA study’s social sensitivity
A
- Results published while orphans growing
- Late adopted children have poor developmental outcomes
- Lowers expectations, self-belief, self-fulfilling prophecy of failure
- Treated differently, stereotyped and prejudiced against
- Study is ongoing, so answers aren’t clear
31
Q
Fearon & Roisman on later effects
A
- Early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional well-being and attachment to children
- Relationship strength depends on attachment type
- Insecure-avoidant has mild disadvantage in all developmental areas
- Disorganised type is strongly associated with later mental disorders and disadvantages, whereas secure attachments appear to convey advantages
- Research support
32
Q
Becker-Stoll et al. on later effects
A
- Contradicting evidence
- Longitudinal study of 43 individuals, from 1 year of age
- Assessed at age 16 with adult attachment interview, and no evidence of continuity or correlation was found
- The extent to which early attachment predicts later outcomes is unclear
33
Q
Retrospective data in later effects
A
- Studies aren’t longitudinal, but rely on participant self-report
- Participant biases and accuracy of recall has strong impacts on evaluation
- Also a confounding factor of whether current, adult attachment or early, childhood attachment is being assessed
- Significant other confounding factors and variables reduce internal validity significantly enough that results can be criticised as meaningless
