attatchment

Question 1

evaluate caregiver interactions
(concsious)

Answer 1

P- difficult to know whats happening
E- impossible to tell if deliberate
E- don’t know if special meaning
I- reduces internal validity as only inferances made

Question 2

evaluate caregiver interactions
(reasearch)

Answer 2

P- reasearch behind good reliability
E- obervations well controled, recorded
E- rewatched, inter observer reliability
I- no longer subjective,increased reliability and validity

Question 3

evaluate caregiver interactions
(validity)

Answer 3

P- Reasearch has good validity
E- infants don’t know they’re being studied
E- unable demand characteristics
I- internal validity increased certain oberving what we want

Question 4

evaluate caregiver interactions
(purpose)

Answer 4

P- studies don’t tell us purpose
E- argued simply describe beviors and don’t tell us the purpose
E- want to know why to explain them
I- not possible here limiting applicability

Question 5

evaluate caregiver interactions
(socially sensitive)

Answer 5

P- reasearch can be socially sensitive
E- mothers returning to work limits interactional sycnchrony
E- suggests children disadvantaged making them feel guilty
I- researcher’s must think carefully about carrying out reaserch and how findings might make people feel.

Question 6

Evaluate the role of the father
(contradictions)

Answer 6

P- there is contradictory reaserach
E- some interested in role as secondary caregiver some primary attatchment
E- means can’t answer the question “what is thr role”

Question 7

evaluate the role of the father
(without)

Answer 7

P- if they have role, those without should be different. they are not
E- grossman suggested they have distinct role however others found those without did not develop differently
E- contradictory suggests unsupported and lacks reliability

Question 8

evaluate the role of the father
(benefits)

Answer 8

P- could benefit those seeking custody
E- suggests they have a unique role or can be just as nurtuing highlights their importance in court
E- shows important implications for families

Question 9

evaluate the role of the father
(advice)

Answer 9

P- can be used to offer advice
E- parents agonise over who should be primary caregiver
E- mothers feel pressured to stay home due to steryotypes
I- reasearch can offer reasuring advice to parents that fathers can take on that role and are important in development

Question 10

evaluate the role of the father
(primary attatchemt)

Answer 10

P- a few reasons why they aren’t primary attatchment figures
E- traditional gender roles women expected to be more nurturing.
C- could be female hormones. Biologically pre-disposed
E- nature vs nurture. Both sides can be argued

Question 11

evaluate shaffer and emersons key study
(validity)

Answer 11

P- good external validity
E-carried out in family homes. observation done by parents
E- behavior completely natural. good ecological validity

Question 12

evaluate shaffer and emersons key study
(logitudinal)

Answer 12

P- it was logitudinal study
E- same children followed up
E- avoids individual differences impacting results
I- improves internal validity as you are sure you have measured the development of attatchment

Question 13

evaluate shaffer and emersons key study
(sample characteristics)

Answer 13

P- 60 babies and their carers
E- large sample makes study more generalisable- large base of data
C- babies all from same social class and city
E- makes it harder to generalise as it doesn’t represent wider population particularly collectivist cultures

Question 14

evaluate shaffer and emersons stages of attatchment
(asoical stage)

Answer 14

P- difficult to study babies in asocial stage
E- have poor coordiantion and are generally immobile
E- difficult to make judgements based on obervation of behavior

Question 15

evaluate shaffer and emersons stages of attatchment
(mixed evidence)

Answer 15

P- mixed evidence to when infants form multipul attatchments
E- bowlby suggested they attatch to one career before they form multipul attatchments
E- however studies in different cultural contexts show they can form multipul attatchments from the outset

Question 16

evaluate shaffer and emersons stages of attatchment
(assessing)

Answer 16

P- could be problem with how attatchment is assesed
E- assume distress is a sign of attatchment. Bowlby pointed out distressed when playmate leaves
E- suggests unable to distinguish behavior towards those they’re attatched to and those they’re unlikely to
I- problematic investigating as e can only make inferances. not entirely valid measure

Question 17

evaluate shaffer and emersons stages of attatchment
(crude)

Answer 17

P- behaviors used to measure are crude
E- used stranger anxiety and seperation anxiety to distingish stages
E- attatchment involves more complex emotions and behaviors
C- simple behavior measures allow scientific study and objective measures. furthers recignition as a science

Question 18

GRAVE for Lorenz

Answer 18

G- humans don’t imprint like geese. Can’t generalise to human population
R- Good reliability. Proceedure was standardised and controled in a lab so can be replicated
A- Helps understand how we should treat animals. Influenced Bowlby
V- Controlled conditions ensured it measured the effect of imprinting on geese
E- concerns around animals rights and how to treat them well

Question 19

GRAVE for harlow

Answer 19

G- Monkey’s are differnt to humans. We are more social beings making it hard to genralise
R- Used standardied proceedure so could be replicated. Unlikely to be done again due to the ethical guidleines
A- Demonstrated importance of early atttchment. Can be used by social workers to identify risk factors
V- the study was well controled in lab contitions therefore we can be sure we measured how much time the monkey wanted to spend with each monther over external factors
E- Cruety to animals was not necissary to learn about human attatchment

Question 20

evaluate learning theory
(aminals)

Answer 20

P- animal reasearch doesn’t support
E- harlows monkeys spent more time ith contact comfort mother
E- not result of feeding

Question 21

evaluate learning theory
(counter)

Answer 21

P- evidence from humans to counter
E- shaffer and emmerson found attatch to mothers even though other careers did most of the feeding
E- meaning feeding is not he main element of attatchment
I- Contrasting reasearch reduces the reliability

Question 22

evaluate learning theory
(other factors)

Answer 22

P- ignores other factors
E- quality of attatchment associated with recipoocity and interactional synchrony
E- No point if just feeding
I- theory is environmentally reductionist- it relies purely on stimulous responce

Question 23

evaluate learning theory
(conditioning)

Answer 23

P- other elements of conditioning unrelated to food may be involved
E- association between caregiver and comfort
E- this means the learning theory is still involved but feeding as a main factor is unlikeley

Question 24

evaluate learning theory
(explanation)

Answer 24

P- social learning theory can explain attatchment
E- some reasearchers suggest parents teach children to love them modelling attatchment and rewarding them
E- learning theory has contributed to our understanding of attatchment
I- however it’s not based on behaviorist principles as the original suggests limiting it’s explanatory power

Question 25

Evaluate a reasearch study that supports bowblybs theory of attatchment

Answer 25

Shafer and emmerson
- all babbies from one place lacks generalisability
- done in own homes gives external validity
Brazlington et al
- unethical ignoring babies
bailey et al
- lacks reliability dependent on memory of mothers

Question 26

Evaluate Bowlbys Theory of attachment
(Mixed evidence)

Answer 26

P- mixed evidencne
E- shaffer demonstratesd majority can form multipul attachment
E- this goes against specific attatchment
I- lacks reiability, doesn’t apply to collectivist cultures

Question 27

Evaluate Bowlbys Theory of attachment
(social relasers)

Answer 27

P- evidence for social releasers to initiate interaction
E- brzlington found mothers ignoring led to distress, then silent and unmoving
E- supports bowbly idea about their significance
I- real life observations increase external validity and can be applied

Question 28

Evaluate Bowlbys Theory of attachment
(passed down)

Answer 28

P- evidence of internal working models passed down families
E- Bailey et al found mothers who reported poor attachment had poor attatchment with their own kids
E- shows iwm is testable and predicts patterns of attachment
I- useful applications eg childresn of abuse

Question 29

Evaluate Bowlbys Theory of attachment
(unclear)

Answer 29

P- it’s uncler if first attatchment is unique
E- studies show mother is more important in predicting behavior, but it may just be stronger not different
E- conflicting argument rasies doubt over emphasis on monotropy
I- bowlby may have overemphasised potentally detering others from making an effort

Question 30

Evaluate Bowlbys Theory of attachment
(temperment)

Answer 30

P- Evidence to show temperment differences effect later social behavior
E- studies show babies may be more anxious or socail due to genetic makeup and this can explain behavior
E- Problem for attachment reaserchers as it;s a credible alternitive
C- However it cannot explain the importance of reciprocity in developing attachmets so both must be relevent

Question 31

Evaluate Bowlbys Theory of attachment
(socially sensitive)

Answer 31

P- socially sensitive idea
E- law of accumulated seperation suggests risk poor quality attachment disadvanatging the child
E- feminists have suggested this is a burden of responsibility to mothers
C- however if bowlby is correct it’s useful and clarifies the importance of mothering. Before bowbly, many thought the role of the mother was unimportant

Question 32

Evaluate the strange situation
(Strongly predictive)

Answer 32

P- attachment type strongly predicts later behaviors
E- sercure babies go on to have better outcomes in school, relationships, ect. Resistant is associted with the worst outcomes including bullying and mental health issues
E- Imporves external validity as it can explain subsequent outcomes and behaviors

Question 33

Evaluate the strange situation
(anxiey)

Answer 33

P- anxiety my not be the main influence on attachment
E- Kagen suggested temperment, the genetically influenced personality of a child is a more important influence on behavior inthe strange situation than attachment
E- meaning temperment may be a confounding variable
I- questions validity of types of attachment as proceedure may be measuring temerment instead

Question 34

Evaluate the strange situation
(inter rater reliability)

Answer 34

P- good inter rater reliabliity, they give same conclusion when watched again
E- takes place in controlled conditions and catagories are easy to observe. Agreement on 94%
E- we can be sure a childs attachment style does not depend on who is observing
I- it’s not subjective and events are not distorted by interpretation credicts psychology as a science

Question 35

Evaluate the strange situation
(another type)

Answer 35

P- may be another type of atttachement
E- a minority of children display atypical attachment that can’t be catagorised
E- commonly known as disorganised attachment and a mix of resistant and avoidant behavior
I- contrasts ainsworth reducing reliablitiy

Question 36

Evaluate the strange situation
(cultures)

Answer 36

P- may not have same meaning in other cultures
E- test doesn’t work in japan bc Japanese mothers are rarely seperated so high levels of seperation anxiety
E- cultural differences in childhood experiences likely to mean children will respond differently to the strange situation
I- infants will struggle to be given an attchment style

Question 37

Evaluate cultural differerences in attchment
(innately determined)

Answer 37

P- one issue is similarities may not be innately determined
E- van lijzendoorn suggestd some cultural similarities might be explained by the media and not innate disposition
E- media presents ideas about prenting so it’s possible all children all over the world are exposed to similar parenting as a result of media, not innate attachment type
I- suggests similarities may be results of a gloabal media culture rather thaninnate biological influence

Question 38

Evaluate cultural differerences in attachment
(countries not cultures)

Answer 38

P- variation findings are based on countries not cultures
E- van lijzendoorn and sogi examined attachment in tokyo and found similar distrabution to western countries wheras a more rural study found an increase of insecure-resistant babies
E- highlight variations within one country
I- supports van lijendoorns claim theres more variation between cultures

Question 39

Evaluate cultural differerences in attachment
(strange situation)

Answer 39

P- strange situation makes culturl assumptions speecific to it’s country of origin
E- ack of sepertion anxiety suggests insecure attachment however in germany his behavior is viewed as positive independence
E- biased tool
I- can resukt in missclassfication and can make parents of other cultures feel wrong

Question 40

Evaluate cultural differerences in attachment
(large samples)

Answer 40

P- cross cultural reasearch uses large samples
E- meta analyised 1990 babies results
E- increases internal valididity reduces impact of anomolies
I- adds to the weight of the conclusions

Question 41

Evaluate cultural differerences in attachment
(underlying principles)

Answer 41

P- there is evidnce supportiong underlying principles of attachment
E- eg china, columbia and germany all support the ide that mternal sensitivity leads to sercure attachment
E- cross cultural reaserch has therfore led to the development of universal principles of attachment

Question 42

Evaluate Bowblbys theory of maternal deprvation
(support)

Answer 42

P- evidence to support
E- women who seperated from mother experienced depression and anxiety compared to those without seperation
E- supports sensitive period suggesting it leads to vunerability to mental health issues
I- increases reliability as findings are consistant with original suggestion

Question 43

Evaluate Bowblbys theory of maternal deprvation
(counter)

Answer 43

P- evidence to counter
E- lewis replicated 44 theives on larger scale finding prolonged seperation did not predict criminality
E- suggests other factors may effect outcome of maternal deprivation and seperation doesn’t lead to affectonless psychopath
I- conflicing reaserch reduces reliability and confidence

Question 44

Evaluate Bowblbys theory of maternal deprvation
(application)

Answer 44

P- led to changes in childrens hospitals
E- parents encouraged to visit children and increased visitation
E- showingit has real life applications to prevent deprivtion
I- increases external validity as it can be used in society increasing applicbility

Question 45

Evaluate Bowblbys theory of maternal deprvation
(flawed)

Answer 45

P- evidence methodologically flawed
E- bowlby interviewed the boys himself to assess them therefore could have reasercher bias
E- evidnc to support the theory is based on subjective interpretation from bowlby
I- could have been neumerous other factors that impacted their behvior due to the sample being orphans in ww2. reduces internal validity as may no have measured effect of deprivation

Question 46

Evaluate Bowblbys theory of maternal deprvation
(unspecific)

Answer 46

P- definition of deprivation is unspecific and vauge
E- rutter claimed bowlby was unclear if the bond had been broken or never formed at all
E- suggested there was a distinction between privation and deprivtion
I- decreases internal validity as it is unclear what is being refered to and should be further clarified

Question 47

Evaulate Romanian orphan studies
(Improvements)

Answer 47

P- led to improvements in institutionl care
E-E.g childrens homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child
E- shows the reaserch has been immensely valuble and has practical appliction
I- if this reaserch contuinues to be used, the quality of these childrens lives will improve and similar outcomes can be prevented

Question 48

Evaulate Romanian orphan studies
(internal validity)

Answer 48

P- ERA has higher internal validity then other orpahan studies
E- children hadn’t recieved perivous trauma e.g dying parents they were there due to the social policy in Romania
E- No confounding variables impactiong them unlike prior reaserch meaning effects could be studies in isolation
I- ERA has good internal validity as reaserchers studied effect of institutionalisation whilst controling other variables

Question 49

Evaulate Romanian orphan studies
(interpretation)

Answer 49

P- orphans faced more than emotional deprivation
E- physical conditions were bad impacting their health and lack of cognitive stimulation may have affected their development
E- suggests reaserchrs should be cautious when interpreting hte effects of these studies
I- concequently, it can’t be concluded effects seen re a result of deprivation, lacking internal validity

Question 50

Evaulate Romanian orphan studies
(random allocation)

Answer 50

P- children weren’t randomly assigned
E- didn’t intervene in doption process so sociable children were adopted first
E- the bucharest early interventon project did randomlly allocate to account for this confounding variable
I- this is highly unethical as it could potntially have implactaions for the rest of their life

Question 51

Evaulate Romanian orphan studies
(long term)

Answer 51

P- long term effects still unclear
E- studies only followed them to teenage years
E- later development those who had been instatutionalised could still catch up
I- we can only draw limited conclusions as we can’t be sure of the later effects in adulthood, reducing the valididty of the findings as it may not accurately describe orphans later experiences

Question 52

Evaluate the effect of early attachment on later relationships
(continuity)

Answer 52

P- evidence on continuity of attachment is mixed
E- zimmerman assesed infant and adolesent attachment to parents. there was little relationship between the two
E- goes against internal working model as early attachment not reflected in later realationships
I- unexpencted from the theory of an internal working model as it should be carried into future relationships reducing reliability as results are inconsistant and can’t predict later attachment

Question 53

Evaluate the effect of early attachment on later relationships
(validity)

Answer 53

P- studies into it have issues ith validity
E- typically use self report methods to assess attachment as a child years later
E- results therfore depend on ppts honesty, and retrospective memory
I- lacking internal validity as they’re effected by social desirability bias and in this case meaning data collected is incorrect

Question 54

Evaluate the effect of early attachment on later relationships
(alternitive explanations)

Answer 54

P- alternitive explanatons to continuity that exsists
E- a third enviromental factor eg parenting style may have a direct ffect to both attachment and a childs ability to form relationships. temperment may also influence both
E- results could be caused by other confounding variables that are difficult to control
I- we can’t know if we are measuring the effect of early attachment on adult relatonships or another factor reducing internal validity

Question 55

Evaluate the effect of early attachment on later relationships
(deterministic)

Answer 55

P- internal working model is deterministic
E- Bowlby probably exaggerated the significance of the iwm
E- people are not doomed to always have bad relationships just bc they had attachment problems,they just have greater risk
I- This idea is pessimistic and might make people feel as though they have no choice in their relationships

Question 56

Evaluate the effect of early attachment on later relationships
(falisifiable)

Answer 56

P- iwm isn’t falsifiable
E- we are unable to measure the influence of our im as it’s unconscious
E- This creates a theoretical problem as it gives us indirect evidence
I- Being unable to study this directly in a controlled way reduces internal validity.