T3: PEEL for Attachment Flashcards
A - caregiver-infant interaction (lacks eco val)
one potential criticism of the research into caregiver-infant interactions, is that much of the research lacks ecological validity. this is because the research takes place in controlled environments, such as a controlled observation with the caregiver and infant being filmed. therefore, it is difficult to generalise the findings to real life cases of caregiver-infant interactions as the caregiver may not interact with the infant more as they are more aware of their interactions or they may interact less as they feel uncomfortable or shy in an unfamiliar environment. therefore, lowering the external validity of the research of the research investigating caregiver-infant interactions.
R2S - caregiver-infant interaction (high control over EV)
moreover, because the research into caregiver infant interactions takes place in controlled environments (controlled observation) this means that the research can be praised for having high control over EV. a potential EV that would be controlled is not having other adults in the room during observations of caregiver-infant interactions as it may distract the infant. this means that cause and effect can be established in the interactions between caregivers and infants, thus increasing the internal validity of the research into caregiver-infant interactions.
A - caregiver-infant interaction (prone to bias - inferences)
however, critics argue that the research into caregiver-infant interactions can be prone to bias, as infants cannot speak, inferences must be drawn about their behaviour. this means that a psychologist may interpret this information in a way that fits their hypothesis, for example an infant may have wind but the psychologist may misinterpret this interaction and infer that this is a smile in response to their parents smile, reducing the internal validity of the research into caregiver-infant interactions. in order to minimise this, there should be 2 observers present to agree on the findings.
R2S - caregiver-infant interaction (practical application)
finally, despite there being some criticism of the research into caregiver-infant interactions, the research can be praised for its practical applications. research into caregiver-infant actions has demonstrated how caregiver and infants interact and the importance of these early interactions on later development. therefore, psychologists (and care workers, social workers, midwives, new parents, nursery teachers) can use this information in order to encourage responsive caregivers and minimise any later issues that the child may have. this means that research into caregiver-infant interactions is an important part of applied psychology, which in turn increases the credibility of research investigating caregiver-infant interactions.
R2S - stages of attachment / mutiple attachments by schaffer (high eco val)
a strength of Schaffer’s research into stages of attachment is that it has high ecological validity. this is because observations were carried out in the families’ own homes during ordinary activities by the parent such as leaving the room. this makes it easier to generalise the findings to real life examples of attachment as the children’s behaviour is likely to be representative of everyday interactions. therefore, increasing the external validity of the research into stages of attachment / multiple attachments.
A - stages of attachment / mutiple attachments by schaffer (prone to social desirability bias)
however the research into stages of attachment could be prone to social desirability bias as interviews were used to gather information, therefore the mothers could have lied about their child’s behaviour to present their parenting in the best possible light, for example they may say that the child is distressed when they leave the room even if they are not, so the results may have lacked internal validity and not measure the true stages of attachment / multiple attachments.
A - stages of attachment / mutiple attachments by schaffer (culture bias - glasgow)
moreover, schaffer’s research into stages of attachment can also be criticised for being culture bias as the sample used were all from the same city (Glasgow). therefore, it is difficult to generalise the findings of the stages of attachment to other cultures. for example, psychologists studying non-western (collectivist) cultures where families often work together to look after a child have found that infants can form multiple attachments from the outset without forming a specific attachment first. thus, limiting the external validity of the research into the stages / multiple attachments as the formation of attachments may differ between cultures.
R2S - stages of attachment / mutiple attachments by schaffer (longitudinal study)
a strength of the study into stages of attachment is that it was carried out longitudinally. this means that the same children were followed-up and observed regularly (each month for their first year of life). this is a strength as the research doesn’t have the confounding variable of individual differences between the children, for example how the natural temperament of the child may affect the perception of their attachment stage, therefore increasing the internal validity of the research into the stages / multiple attachments.
R2S - types of attachment / ainsworth strange situation (Van Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg -> consistent results)
research to support ainsworth’s strange situation research was conducted by Van Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg. they replicated the strange situation in the USA and found consistent results to ainsworth’s. 65% of infants were securely attached, 21% were insecure-avoidant and 14% were insecure-resistant. this supports ainsworth’s strange situation because it provides further evidence for the 3 types of attachment and supports that secure attachment is the most common attachment type. therefore, increasing the validity of the strange situation as a way of assessing attachment types.
A - types of attachment / ainsworth strange situation (lacks eco val)
one potential criticism of ainsworth’s research into attachment types, is that it lacks ecological validity. this is because the research takes place in a controlled environment, (room with 2 way mirror). therefore, it may not be appropriate to generalise the findings to real life attachment types as the infant may not behave how they usually do in their natural environment, for example, they may explore the room less that they usually would or be even more scared of a stranger as they feel uncomfortable or shy in an unfamiliar environment. therefore, lowering the external validity of the research into attachment types.
A - types of attachment / ainsworth strange situation (imposed etic)
however, the strange situation tool used to measure attachment has been criticised for imposed etic. it is based on american child-rearing practises and ignores practices in other cultures. for example, in germany, independence in encouraged in infants therefore, these infants may sure insecure-avoidant attachment behaviours in the strange situation. however, this behaviour may be considered desirable within this culture rather than insecure. therefore, the strange situation may not be appropriate to measure attachment types in other cultures.
R2S Cultural variations in attachment (high pop val)
Van Ijzendoorn’s meta-analysis of cultural variations of attachment could be argued to have high population validity as it was a meta-analysis of 32 strange situation studies, using a large sample of 2000 infants. this supports cultural variations of attachment because it’s easier to generalise the findings that secure is the most common attachment type in all cultures, to the rest of the target population. therefore, increasing the external validity of the research investigating cultural variations in attachment types
A Cultural variations in attachment (culture bias)
however, critics would point out that although there was a large number of studies combined for this meta-analysis, the research can be criticised for culture bias as over half (18 out of 32) of the research studies were carried out in the US (individualistic, western culture) and only 5 of the studies were carried out in collectivist (non-western) cultures. therefore, it is difficult to generalise the findings that secure attachment is the most common attachment type across all cultures when explaining the different types of attachment. therefore, reducing the external validity of the research investigating cultural variations in attachment.
A Cultural variations in attachment (imposed etic)
moreover, the strange situation tool used to investigate cross cultural variations in attachment types has been criticised for imposed etic. it is based on american child-rearing practices and ignores practises in other cultures (that aren’t american). for example, in germany, independence is encouraged in infants therefore, these infants may show insecure-avoidant attachment behaviours in the strange situation. however, this behaviour may be considered desirable within this culture rather than insecure. therefore, the strange situation may not be appropriate to measure attachment types across all cultures when investigating cultural variations in attachment.
R2S - Harlow’s animal studies of attachment (practical applications)
a strength of harlow’s research into animal studies in attachment is that it has practical applications. the principles of the research findings that contact comfort is most important in the formation of attachments has been used in the real world to emphasise child rearing needs to go beyond caring for a child’s physical needs. this can be used by professionals (social workers, clinical staff, midwives / doctors) to identify infants who are at risk of a lacking a bonding experience and intervene to prevent long term damage. therefore, harlow’s research is an important part of applied psychology when explaining the formation of attachment, increasing the credibility of harlow’s animal research.
A - explanations of attachment learning theory (environmental reductionism)
The learning theory of attachment can be criticised for environmental reductionism. This is because the theory reduces the complex human behaviour of attachment down to simple basic units of learning to attach through stimulus, response and association. This neglects a holistic approach, which would take into account how a person’s culture and social context would influence and explain their attachment for example in collectivist cultures where families often work together to look after children , children may form multiple attachments from the outset not just with who feeds them. Therefore, the learning theory of attachment may lack validity as it doesn’t allow us to understand the behaviour in context of attachment as a whole.
A - explanations of attachment learning theory (research to contradict - harlow)
research to contradict the learning theory of attachment was conducted by harlow. harlow found that monkey’s spent more time with the surrogate mother who provided them with comfort, rather than the surrogate mother who provided them with food. this contradicts the learning theory’s assumption that we learn to attach to the person who feeds us via associations. therefore, limiting the validity of the learning theory of attachment.
R2S - explanations of attachment learning theory (research to contradict - harlow -> conducted on animals)
however, harlow conducted this research on animals and therefore it may not be appropriate to generalise the findings to attachments in humans due to the argument that humans are more complex and sophisticated than animals, limiting the extent to which harlow’s research can be used to criticise the learning theory of attachment.
A - explanations of attachment learning theory (schaffer and emerson - interactions over food)
research to contradict the learning theory of attachment was conducted by schaffer and emerson, they found that infants tended to form attachments to their mother regardless of whether she was the one who usually fed them, attachment was more due to responding to infant’s signals and interacting with them. furthermore, research by field into the role of the father has also shown that the best quality attachments are with the caregivers that are sensitive and responsive to the infant’s needs. this contradicts the learning theory of attachment because it suggests attachment goes beyond just feeding the infant, suggesting it is not the most important factor in forming an attachment. therefore limiting the validity of the learning theory of attachment.
R2S - bowlby’s monotropic theory (lorenz -> critical period)
research to support bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachmnet comes from lorenz. lorenz studied imprinting in goslings and found a critical period of 12-17 hours in which imprinting had to take place otherwise it would not later. this supports the importance of bowlby’s concept of a critical period because it suggests that infants must attach within the critical period otherwise it would be difficult to form attachments later. therefore, increasing the validity of bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment.
(D) A - bowlby’s monotropic theory (lorenz -> critical period -> conducted on geese)
however, critics would argue that this research to support may be limited as it was conducted on geese and therefore, as humans are more emotionally complex, the concept of the critical period may also be more complex and may not represent attachment behaviour in humans.
R2S - bowlby’s monotropic theory (hazan and shaver 1987 -> love quiz -> IWM)
Research to support Bowlby’s monotropic theory and concept of an internal working model was conducted by Hazan and Shaver (1987) who created the ‘Love quiz’. They found that securely attached children had happy and long-lasting relationships in later life whereas insecurely attached children found it hard to form relationships and many were divorced. This supports the Internal Working Model as a
feature of Bowlby’s monotropic theory because their early infant attachments acted as a template for future relationships. Therefore, increasing the validity of Bowlby’s monotropic theory.
(D) A - bowlby’s monotropic theory (hazan and shaver 1987 -> love quiz questionnaire -> may lie)
However, critics would argue that this research to support may also be limited as it was conducted using a questionnaire, in which participants may lie about their relationships in order to present them in the best possible light, reducing the internal validity of the research to support Bowlby’s monotropic theory.
A - bowlby’s monotropic theory (schaffer and emerson -> multiple attachments)
Research to contradict Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory was conducted by Shaffer and Emerson who found evidence to support the view that children have multiple attachments. They found these multiple attachments may help children to develop socially, emotionally and cognitively. This contradicts Monotropy and the idea that infants have one attachment. Therefore, lowering the validity of Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory of attachment.
