Attatchment Flashcards

1
Q

What is attatchment

A

An emotional tie/relationship between 2 people
An infant and caregiver
Attachment is needed for survival for a baby

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

(A01)

What is interaction synchrony in caregiver infant interactions

A

Relates to timing and pattern of interactions
Rhythmic interaction = mirroring emotions and behaviour
Behaviours and effects are in sync
Metzoff and Moore
- 2+ weeks observes interaction synchrony
- adult displayed either of 3 gestures
- filmed child’s response and was identified by independent observers
- associations were found between the child and adult

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

(A01)

What is reciprocity in care giver infant interactions

A

Reciprocal = 2 way or mutual
Infant and caregiver are both active contributors in interaction and response
In a conversation like manner
Tonrick et al
- when people smile it triggers an infant to as well
- asked mothers interacting with their child to stop and be static
- child would try and tempt mother into interaction and smiling
- when no response the child was puzzled and distressed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

(A03)

What were the problems testing infant behaviour in caregiver infant interactions

A

Infants faces are in constant motion and can’t distinguish emotions
Metzoff and Moore filmed and asked observers who didn’t know the experiments what behaviour is being imitated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

(A03)

What is the effect of failure to replicate in caregiver infant interactions

A

Other studies failed to replicate the finishing of metzoff and Moore

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

(A03)

What is the strength of having controlled observations in caregiver infant interactions

A

Metzoff and Moore filmed from multiple angles to catch fine details
Good validity as Babis don’t change reaction or aware of recording

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

(A03)

What is the effect of individual differences in caregiver infant interactions

A

Every infant is different some have stronger attachments therefore react differently
Isabella et al found that infants with stronger attachments have more interaction synchrony

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

(A01)

What did Schaffer and emmerson study about the development of attatchment

A

60 infants from 5-23 weeks in working class homes in Glasgow
Every 4 weeks the mother described the infants response to separation
Findings
Attachments were quality over quantity
60% mum first attachment
3% dad first attachment
27% both first attachment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

(A01)

What is stage 1 in the development of attachment

A
Indiscriminate attachment 
Birth to 2 months 
Similar response to all subjects
Near the end is greater response to social stimuli 
I’m
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

(A01)

What is stage 2 in the development of attachment

A
Beginning of attachment 
2 months to 4 months 
More social and prefer humans to objects 
Distinguish between familiar or not 
No stranger anxiety
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

(A01)

What is stage 3 in the development of attachment

A

Discriminate attachment
4 months to 7 months
Separation anxiety joy on reunion
Specific attachment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

(A01)

What is stage 4 in the development of attachment

A

Multiple attachment
7 + months
Wider circle of attachment
1/3 infant have 5+ attachments by 1 years old

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

(A03)

Why was the effect of unreliable data in stages of attachment

A

Findings were based off of the mother’s reports
Northern and fathers importance of ideas differ
Systematic bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

(A03)

Why were the results of Schaffer and Emerson in development of attachment ungeneralisable

A
Biased sample 
Working class 
- only generalise to that social group
1960’s research
Mums stayed at home 
- only formed attachment with mum
- modern day = fathers who’s stay at home quadrupled 
Findings would alter if conducted now
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

(A03)

What was the effect of individual differences in the stages of attachment development

A

All babies develop at different stages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

(A01)

What was Lorenzes study in animal studies of attachment (geese)

A

Procedure = 2 groups of geese eggs to test imprinting,
One group was raised with Lorenze and the other with the mother
When the geese were born, they saw Lorenze face first
- started to follow him and imprinted on him
Tested it by having Lorenze and and the mother on either side of the geese
- lorenze geese went to him
- mother geese went to mother
Repeated of herlews only imprinted on the mother
Imprinting = irreversible effect on mate preference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

(A01)

What was harlows study of animal studies of attachment (monkeys)

A

Procedure = 8 monkey placed in a cafe with 2 wire monkeys, one who had a cloth and one without a cloth for 165 days
The monkeys stayed with the clothed mother even if the other one had milk and used as safe base
Only went to the other one if necessary to feed
Monkeys developed abnormally
Suggest we form attachment through comfort not food providers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

(A03)

What is supporting evidence for lorenzes study

A

Many repeated studies testing imprinting
Guitton with chicks
Similar results

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

(A03)

What were the ethical issues in lorenzes study

A

Imprinting is irreversible and permanent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

(A03)

What was the effect of confounding variable in harlows study

A

Lacks internal validity

Monkeys could find the clothes mother attractive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

(A03)

Why were the ethical issues on harlows study

A

Monkeys had lasting emotional harm

Later find it hard to interact with peers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

(A03)

What are the issues with animal studies

A

Ungeneralisable to humans

Different psychological makeup

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

(A01)

How does classical conditioning in babies work in learning theory of attachment

A

Babies learn to form attachments with their mother
Baby forms association between mum (ns) and feeling of pleasure with being fed (ucr)
Whenever baby is fed, the mum is present associating the mum with food
Mum stimulates feelings of happiness
Leading to attachment
UCS milk = pleasure UCR
NS mother = no response
During
UCS milk = pleasure UCR
NS mother + UCS milk = pleasure UCR
CR mother = pleasure CR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

(A01)

How does operant conditioning in babies work in learning theory of attachment

A

Mother reward baby with food
- baby associates mother with food
Baby repeats action that brings her lost
Food = primary reinforce, immediately removes discomfort
Mother = secondary reinforcer, even without food the mother’s presence removes discomfort

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
(A03) | What is the effect on the learning theory being based on animal studies
Pavlovs dogs and skinners rats Can’t generalise to human as were more advance and social and have different psychological makeup Invalidates the approach as animal studies aren’t a true representation of attachment in babies
26
(A03) | Why might the learning theory of attachment invalidated
Contact concord is more important than food Harlows monkeys spent more time with clothes mother Learning theory= food > comfort However monkeys aren’t generalisable to humans
27
(A03) | What is an alternative explanation for learning theory of attachment
Food may not be the only reinforcer enabling attachment ‘Infants may become distressed when mother responds quickly’ Schaffer and emmison Quality > food Several factors are important to form and attachment Bowlbys evolutionary theory ‘attachment to survive’
28
(A01) | What was the aim of Ainsworths sss
Test 9-18 month infants behaviour in different environments | Observed separation anxiety, joy on reunion, stranger anxiety, secure base concept
29
(A01) | What was the procedure for Ainsworths sss
``` 9x9 ft room 8 episodes each 3 mins 1. P and I play 2. P watched I play 3. S enters and talks to P 4. P leaves 5. P returns and S leaves 6. P leaves I all alone 7. S returns 8. P returns S leaves ```
30
(A01) | What were the findings of Ainsworths sss
Secure = 66% Avoidant = 22% Resistant = 12% Separation anxiety: 1 (+) 2 (++) 3 (-) Stranger anxiety: 1 ( avoid stranger when alone, friendly when mother is there) 2 ( avoid/fear) 3 (normal) Joy on reunion: 1 (+) 2 (approaches mother but resists contact) 3 (little interest)
31
(A01) | What did Ainsworth conclude about her sss study
Attachment depends on sensitivity of caregiver Sensitive mother’s = generally secure Less responsive mother’s = insecure resistant Babies attachment affected by quality of care
32
(A03) | How is sss allied as a tool to investigate cultural attachment styles
Gain insight into difficult child rearing practices Can ljzendoorn and kroonenberg Meta analysis of 32 sss studies Compared attachments styles across cultures
33
(A03) | What effect does high inter rated reliability in the sss have
More than 1 observed = rating between observers compared 0.95 - 1.00 agreement between raters More reliable results f
34
(A03) | What effect does a biased sample have on the sss results
106 working class American babies Difficult to generalise Low population validity
35
(A03) | What effect does low internal validity have on sss results
May not only measure attachment style of infants Could measure quality of relationship Main and Weston - ‘behaviours differ depending on mum or dads behaviours’
36
(A03) | What effect did controlled conditions have on the sss
Standardised procedure Other studies repeatable High replicabity high reliable results
37
(A01) | What did van ljzendoorn and kroonenberg study about cultural variations
Meta analysis of 32 sss studies, 2000 kids, 8 counties (most American) Aim to find if inter/intra cultural differences exist Found secure attachment is most common - seen as best as innate and biological Insecure accountant = 2nd except Israel and Japan USA - 18% resistant - 22% avoidant - 68% secure
38
(A01) | What did grossman and grossman find about Germany attachment styles
High insecure resistant | German culture = interpersonal distance between parent and child
39
(A01) | What did Takashi find about japan attachment styles
``` 60 middle class infants, similar rates of attachment No evident on insecure avoidant High secure = 68% 90% sss stopped due to distressed participants ```
40
(A03) | What supporting evident did Tonrick provide for cultural variations
Studies efe tribe in Africa Where infants were looked after and breastfed by others bus slept with their mother’s Despite child rearing difference - at 6 months the child’s mother was their primary attachment
41
(A03) | What was the effects of global culture on cultural variations
According to Bowlby, attachment is inborn and natural Ljzendoorn and kroonenberg found cultural similarities - parenting idea spread through mass media Suggesting cultural similarities aren’t does to innate biological influences but global culture I’m
42
(A03) | What was the effect of cornrows rather than cultures in cultural variations
Countries have subculture therefore it is wrong to conclude attachment is dues to subcultures Urban Tokyo = similar attachment to western countries Rural Tokyo = insecure resistant First conclusion is an overrepresentation of countries attatchment
43
(A01) | What did Spitz and Wolf find about bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation
100 psychology normal children in long term hospital care Most became depressed within a few months If stayed in hospitalisation for less than 3 months then the recovered quickly and was reversible Length of separations is important in attachment
44
(A01) | What did Skodak and Skeel find about bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation
Holden in institutions scored poorly on intelligence tests Some children transferred institutions where more emotional care was available - they scored higher
45
(A01) | What is bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation
``` ‘Young children should experience warm, innate continuous relationship with the mother were they both find satisfaction and enjoyment’ 3 strands - value of maternal care - critical period - long term consequences ```
46
(A01) | What was bowlbys 44 thieves study in bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation
44 children were caught stealing and 44 children didnt steal (control group) Suggested that thieves were emotionless psychopaths who lacked affection, shame or responsibility Found - affectionless thieves had early seperations from their mother - 86% of AT experiences frequent separation again 17.5% of control group Suggest early separation is linked to affectionless psychopathy
47
(A01) | What is the value of maternal care in bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation
Previously assumed that good food and physical care is key for good care Bowlby = ‘isn’t enough what child is well fed and safe, they need warm, innate, and continuous relationship to ensure normal mental health
48
(A01) | What is the critical period in bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation
Only emotionally disturbed if 2.5 years + and no substitute mother available Damage is avoided if substitute mother provides emotional care
49
(A01) | What are the long term consequences in bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation
Ltc of deprivation = emotional maladjustment and poor mental health
50
(A03) | What real life applications support bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation
In the past children’s who were in hospital care the parents were discourage or forbidden to visit This led to change in theirs mental health and emotions Now changed the way children are cared for in hospitals
51
(A03) | Why did Rutter conclude that bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation was too simplistic
Doesn’t show weather attachment broke or was never formed Decided on - privation = failure to form attachment - deprivation = formed but broke
52
(A03) | What did Barrett find about bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation
Individual differences
53
(A03) | What supporting evidence did Bilfuro find
Maternal deprivation had long term effects Studies women who had early separation from their mothers for a year Found 25% had depression / anxiety later on compared to 15% of the control group Supports long term effects and critical period
54
(A01) | What is an institute
Place dedicated to a particular task | Eg : children waiting adoption, baring for mentally ill
55
(A01) What was the procedure for theRoman orphanages study Rutter and soniya
165 roman orphans in the early 1990’s who spent their early lives in institutions 111/165 adopted before 2 years old 54/165 adopted before 4 years old Compared with 52 British children adopted at 6 months Tested at 4,6,11,15 years old to assess physical, cognitive and social development
56
(A01) | What were the finding for the Roman orphanage study by Rutter and soniya
At first : Romans lacked physical cognitive and social development and weighed less and were mentally retarted 4 years = some Romans’ equal to British who were adopted at 6 months Children adopted after 6 moths = disinhibited attatchment and problems with peer relationships Suggests lte are less severe of the child had the chance to form attachments
57
(A01) | What did le mare and audet conclude about roman orphanages
Studies growth and health in 36 roman orphaned by the age of 4 = physically smaller than the control group By the age of 10 they had the same physical health Suggest recovery is possible
58
(A01) | What did zeanon find about roman orphanages
136 roman orphans from 12-36 months 90% lived in institutions Assessed strange situation Institutionalised students showed signs of disinhibited attatchment
59
(A03) | What is supporting evidence to show institutionalisation has long term effects
Quinton et al Compared 100 women where halved loved in institutions Ex institutionalised experienced difficulty as a parent
60
(A03) | What are the problems generalising information from roman orphanages
Lacked basic hygiene and had intellectual malfunction as lack of cognitive simulation and disinhibited attachment Finding can’t be applied to understanding of impact of better quality care
61
(A03) | What is evidence to show the effects of institutionalisation can be overcome by adequate substitute care
Hodges and Tizard 65 children in institutionalised before attatchment (4 months) Studied at 4,8,16 years and compared with control group of living at home The earlier attachment then less negative effects