Attachments Flashcards
Evaluation of caregiver-infant interactions
+ Scientific
E.g. Controlled lab environment
- Difficult to observe
E.g. Extremely difficult to understand what is taking place in the infants perspective
Unknown if deliberate
+ Practical application:
Primary caregivers and Healthcare
- Socially sensitive
E.g. pressure on primary caregivers t - Problem with research support
E.g. Meltzoff and Moores doesn’t tell us the importance.
Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson
+ Real world setting
- Problem with research
Social desirability bias - Culture bias
E.g. 60 Glasgow infants and mothers
+ Longitudinal study
- Measuring multiple attachment
What did bowlby say about Measuring attachment
pointed out that children have playmates as well as attachment figures and may get distressed when a playmate leaves the room but this does not signify attachment.
Evaluation of the role of the father
+ Progresses research forward:
understudied helps progress research
increases credibility
+ Real world setting: Schaffer and Emerson
+ Practical application:
E.g. Fathers are as important as mothers in the role of caregiver
- Socially sensitive:
E.g. suggests mothers are the more important caregiver. - Inconsistent findings: Not a clear role
Evaluation of animal studies
+ Research support:
E.g. Hess
+ Theoretical value
+ Practical application
- Ethical issues:
- lacks cross species validity
Theoretical value
E.g. Harlows research had profound effect on psychologist understanding of mother - infant attachment. Not being feed but comfort.
Increasing usefulness
Hess
Found strongest response of imprinting occurred within 12-27 hours
Evaluation of learning theory
+ Research support
E.g. based off the principles of Pavlov (Classical con)
and Skinner (Operant con)
+ Practical application:
Feeding practises
- Research refuting
E.g. Harlow disagrees suggesting babies attach due to comfort not food - Research refuting:
E.g. Shaffer and Emerson - Alternative explanation:
E.g. Bowlby’s monotropic theory
What did Shaffer and Emerson say about learning theory
Babies developed primary attachments to their biological mothers even though other carers did most of the feeding
Evaluation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory
+ Research support:
E.g. Shaffer and Emerson
Argue babies have one primary attachment
+ Research support:
E.g. Brazelton
+ Research support:
+ Practical application:
E.g. Mother stays in hospital with baby to attach during critical period
- Alternative explanation:
E.g. Learning theory
Brazelton
observed interactions, When primary caregiver ignored the babies social releases babies reacted extremely negatively.
Bailey
assessed 99 mothers with one year old babies on the quality of their attachment to their own mothers using a standard interview procedure. The researchers also assessed the attachment of the babies to the mothers by observation.
found that the others who reported poor attachments to their own parents in the interviews were much more likely to have children classified as poor according to the observations.
Evaluation of Strange Situation
+ Scientific
E.g. Controlled lab environment
+ High reliability
E.g. Filmed and inter-rater reliability
+ Predictive validity
E.g. Outcomes of later development
- Culture bias:
E.g. 100 middle class families from America - Extended research:
E.g. Main & Salomon
Predictive validity Strangen sit
E.g. Outcomes of later development
Secure = success at school and in romantic relationships and friendships in adulthood
insecure attachment = bullying in later childhood and adult mental health
Main & Salomon
4th attachment
Disorganised attachment (Avoidant & Resistant)
Evaluation of Cross Cultural attachment
+ Large sample
E.g. 2000 participants
+ Standardised procedures
E.g. strange situation methodology was used for the same between all 32 studies.
- Ethnocentric
E.g. Strange situation was designed by an American researcher (Ainsworth) based on a British theory. question over whether American theories and assessments can be applied to other cultures. - Sample unrepresentative:
E.g. 150% bigger difference between studies than between culture.
Evaluation of institutionalisation studies
Evaluation of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation
+ Research support
E.g. Levy et al
- Supporting evidence may be poor
Bowlby - Research refuting:
E.g. Lewis
+ Practical application:
E.g. Monotropic attachment Better child care and hospital visiting hours extended to allow time with parents.
- Critical period is actually more sensitive:
Koluchova (1976)
Levy et al
showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development through no other aspects of development
bowlby
Bowlby drew on a number of sources of evidence for maternal deprivation including studies of children orphaned during the Second World War, those growing up in poor quality orphanages, and of course his 44 thieves study.
However these are all flawed as evidence. War orphan were traumatised and often had poor after-care, therefore these factors might have been the causes of later development difficulties rather than separation
Lewis
replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger scale, looking at 500 young people.
In her sample a history of early prolonged separation from the mother did not predict criminality of difficulty forming close relationships
Koluchova (1976)
Some cases of very severe deprivation have had good outcomes provided the child has some social interaction and good aftercare.
E.g Koluchova (1976) reported the case of twin boys from Czechoslovakia who were isolated from the age of 18 months until they were seven years old. Subsequently they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to fully recover
Evaluation of attachment and later relationships
+ Research support:
E.g. Hazen and Shaver
+ Large sample
E.g. 620 participants
- Problem with research
Social desirability - Culture bias
E.g. 620 American
+ Research support
E.g. Smith
Smith
Assessed attachment type and bully involvement using standard questionaries’ in 196 children aged 7-11 from London
Secure = unlikely to be involved in bullying
Insecure avoidant = victims
Insecure resistance = Bullies
