Psychology (O Connor et al. - Attachment) Flashcards
O Connor et al. (AIM)
To investigate if a standard social learning based intervention aimed at attachment will have an impact on or change parental sensitivity.
O Connor et al. (PROCEDURE)
Intervention group = underwent several parent programs and control group = got offered no interventions
Pre treatment = 2 professionals payed a home visit to the parent and the child, measuring their parental sensitivity and child-parent attachment relationship:
TREATMENT
10 min Free play task
10 min highly instructed play task = Parent and Child were given a LEGO set to complete, but the parent was instructed to not participate. This is one way in how they are measuring or determining if they have a good / secure attachment because the child is securely attached if it sees the mother as a secure base to explore the outside world. The outside world being the LEGO set, so that is when they are then trying to independently solve the problem by putting the LEGO set together.
5 min clean/tidy up task
The ACTUAL interventions / parent programs used for 18 weeks:
Parent programs used for 12 weeks and had 3 stages: 1. The professionals within the group introduce different parenting styles and techniques, outlining their pros, cons and guidelines to follow when using them. 2. A discussion between parents to reciprocally help each other. 3. The application phase is initiated as the parents will test their newly acquired parenting skill knowledge with child actors in a well-suited scenario.
Literacy program lasts for 6 weeks and also 3 stages: 1. The parent will give the child a word and ask for the definition of it (or the child randomly comes across a word and needs to explain it) 2. If the child struggles, the parent will give them a hint. 3. Parents will praise their child if it gets the definition correct.
Group program: Consists of a Leader (child developmental professional) and a Co-Leader (mental health professional)
O Connor et al. Sample?
672 children (Kindergarten and year 1) from 4 primary schools in the most disadvantaged and deprived inner-city London boroughs.
Emotional and Behavioural attitudes of the child were examined by questionnaires summed together by teacher reports (99% of all teachers filled out) and parent reports (79% of all parents filled out).
A statistician allocated the 8 classes of the 4 primary schools randomly (Randomized controlled trials = RCT) into 24 classes over 3 years. 16 children were naturally excluded to employ controls such as excluding clinically at risk children and children who had literacy problems (did not speak english very well)
75% of the parents participated in the interventions (90% were mothers).
O Connor et al.. (FINDINGS)
Child-centred-parenting: There was a significant effect of treatment in unstructured tasks (Free play and tidy up / clean up tasks) but a less significant treatment effect in structured (highly instructed play with the LEGO set).
O Connor et al. (CONCLUSIONS)
That standard social learning theory parent based interventions can improve parental sensitivity and the child-parent attachment relationship.
O Connor et al. (STRENGTHS)
It is ethical (approved by the research and ethics committee and gathered informed consent of parents)
Representative of the area: used 4 primary schools, a relatively large sample for that, and included many different ethnicities.
Reliable because it uses a standardized procedure that makes it reproducible and practical
High reliability because the experimenters (which rated the parent-child attachment relationship for pre and post treatment) were all not aware in which condition the pps are currently in because they randomly allocated the PPS to the different interventions (RCT). This helps reduce researcher bias and increases reliability.
It has internal validity as they employed several controls within the sample to avoid extraneous variables affecting the studies findings e.g excluding children that are at clinical risk or have literacy problems. Also high internal validity due to experimenters (2 per group leader and co-leader) were overseeing the interventions to make sure that the participants were performing them correctly, avoiding extraneous variables taking effect distorting results.
O Connor et al. (WEAKNESSES)
Not generalizable because it was done in a very specific disadvantaged/deprived area in a London borough, too small of a sample and excluded children from the sample.
It is reductionistic because 90% of primary caregivers in the study are mothers, when in reality there are also many stand-alone fathers and other legal guardians that act as the primary caregiver.
Explain one way in which it could be improved.
Could have a bigger sample to make it generalizable (in other parts of London perhaps)
