Child Psychology - Studies

Question 1

Aim of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)?

Answer 1

To look at intercultural and intracultural differences of a large set of data about attachment.

Question 2

Procedure of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)?

Answer 2

A meta-analysis was done; 32 studies conducted in 8 countries using the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) to measure attachment types was conducted, comparing attachment types across countries, excluding studies involving children with special educational needs and those over 24 months old.

Question 3

Results of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)?

Answer 3

21% were Type A, 65% were Type B and 14% were Type C.

In most studies attachment was most frequently found to be Type B, which is a secure attachment

In the western countries., there are fewer Type C attachments than expected and more Type A attachments than expected .

In Israel and Japan there are more Type C and fewer Type A attachments.

Combining all US studies, the attachment distribution didn’t align with Ainsworth’s suggestions, leaving no accepted baseline after the meta-analysis.

Question 4

Conclusions of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)?

Answer 4

The study found that attachment Type B was the modal attachment in all countries, with more Type A attachments in Western European countries and more Type C attachments in Israel and Japan.

Question 5

Generalisablity of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)?

Answer 5

High generalisability - the large sample size allows for high generalisability of attachment types across different cultures, as many samples were chosen across various cultures.

Question 6

Reliability of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)?

Answer 6

Secure attachment across cultures - consistency of results

Based on a replicable standardized procedure - strange situation

Question 7

Application of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)?

Answer 7

It is important info for people working in day-care facilities to shape their behaviour to the child’s expectations of how parents should behave
e.g whether to encourage independence or dependence as the “wrong” kind of behaviour.
Could be confusing to the child as it’ll be what they were taught not to do at home.

Question 8

Validity of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)?

Answer 8

Interpretated secondary data which may have been incorrect.

Internal validity - based on strange situation procedure which is standardised and establishes cause and effect.

Question 9

Ethics of van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)?

Answer 9

No ethical issues - meta-analysis uses secondary data so they didn’t engage with any ppts, and the ppts had previously given permission, so no further permission is needed.

Question 10

Aim of Li et al. (2013)?

Answer 10

To investigate the impacts of high quality and low quality day-care in two different age groups (infant/toddler & pre-school).

Question 11

Hypothesises of Li et al. (2013)?

Answer 11

Children with HQ in Period 1/P1 (up to 24 months) only have positive outcomes after P2 (up to 54 months) if they have HQ care in P2.

HQ + HQ in P1 and P2 would have a better outcome than HQ + LQ in P1 and P2.

HQ + HQ in P1 and P2 would have been a better outcome than any other combination.

Question 12

Procedure of Li et al. (2013)?

Answer 12

Data was used from the NICHD study of early childcare.
1,364 families were selected from 10 sites in the USA.
Children studied from birth.
Childcare quality assessed at 6, 15, 24, 36 and 54 months using the ORCE.
Each assessment consisted of four x44-minute observations.
Quality rated on four-point scales.
Avg. score of 3.0 was the cutoff for HQ (high quality) and LQ (low quality) care.
A score higher than 3.0 indicated high quality care.
General mental development was measured at 24 months using the Bayley Mental Developmental Index to measure cognitive development.
At 54 months, Woodcock-Johnson tests were used to measure language, memory and IQ.

Question 13

Results of Li et al. (2013)?

Answer 13

Cognitive, language and preacademic skills for language and maths were highest among children who experienced HQ care in both the infant-toddler period (up to 24 mths) and preschool (up to 54 mths)

Skills were somewhat lower among children who experienced HQ during only one of these periods

Skills were lowest among those who experienced LQ care.

Question 14

Conclusions of Li et al. (2013)?

Answer 14

There were no ‘clear winners’ - some functions like language were better with late HQ care whereas memory skills were better with early HQ care.

Question 15

Generalisablity of Li et al. (2013)?

Answer 15

High generalisability - large sample; included different ethnicities, races and ages etc and considered the socio-economic status of families.

Random sampling = lack of control; no way to make sure there is a equal amount for demographics/representation

Removal of characteristics is bad as it means it can be applied to all families regardless.

Question 16

Reliablity of Li et al. (2013)?

Answer 16

Test/re-test and inter-rater reliability - uses a standardised procedure as questionnaires and observations were used at the end of each stage so can be replicated on a different sample.

Researcher bias - same children and same observers; children have the chance to build a relationship with the observer.

Question 17

Application of Li et al. (2013)?

Answer 17

The results suggest the investment in good quality care should be distributed across the early childhood periods as they are both important for cognitive development.

They should focus on investing money on good quality care during pre school as it costs less and leads to academic success.

Question 18

Validity of Li et al. (2013)?

Answer 18

Longitudinal study - makes it more valid as it assesses the long term effects of high and low quality care on the same child development.

Reductionist - the quality of daycare was assessed by whether it scored 3.0 on the ORCE so as daycare varies, no two places are identical and the relationships between the carers and the children change all the time.

Question 19

Ethics of Li et al. (2013)?

Answer 19

Parents gave presumptive consent for their children to take part.
Nevertheless, being tested at a young age can still be quite stressful.