Topic 3 - Attachment A03 Flashcards
Strengths for care-giver infant interactions.
High Validity:
Meltzoff & Moore’s study on interactional synchrony was filmed. This means that observations can be analysed later and there is no ambiguity to the baby’s responses as researchers will not miss any behaviours & using infants at such a young age means that they are unaware they are being filmed so their behaviour will not change in response to being recorded.
Evidence to support the findings:
Murray & Tervarthen (1985) studied two-month-old infants using interactions with their mothers via a video monitor, when mothers did not interact with their infants, via the monitor, infants showed distress and tried to attract their mother’s attention. Suggesting that the infant is an active and intentional partner in the infant-caregiver relationship.
Limitations for care-giver infant interactions.
There is no certainty to the findings:
Using infants and babies in research can make it difficult to test their behaviours. Infants lack coordinated movements and tend to move their limbs randomly, and researchers may be bias in the interpretation of their movement.
Lack of ecological validity:
The Still Face Experiment was a lab procedure so findings of the experiment may not give an accurate prediction of what would be seen in the real world.
Strengths of the stages of attachment.
High external validity to the research:
The observations did not take place in controlled, lab conditions. This means that the babies were not distracted by the presence of unfamiliar researchers.
Real-world application:
The stages of attachment can be applied practically to daycare settings such as nurseries and preschools (kindergartens). Parents can use the stages of attachment to help understand the development of their child. This means that they may avoid starting their child in daycare around seven months due to the likelihood of the infant being in the specific attachment phase.
Limitations of the Stages of Attachment.
Data may be unreliable:
The study relied on the mothers making observations. The mothers were unlikely to be objective observers. Some mothers may be more or less sensitive to their child’s distress at separation and so report findings differently and with less accuracy from other families.
Findings may not be generalisable beyond the immediate demographic:
as they only used families from a working-class population from Glasgow, Scotland (an individualistic culture).
Strengths of role of the father.
Good real-world application:
Research into the role of the father can be used to help parents or prospective parents make decisions about who is to be the primary caregiver. This means that families can make informed decisions about which parent(s) returns to work following the birth of the child which has implications for society and practical applications:
Paternity/maternity leave; Custody of children in the case of divorce; Role modelling parental skills in young men; More societal acceptance of the single father
Limitations of role of the father.
Grossman’s study into the role of the father does not take into account non-heterosexual partnerships. If fathers play a key role in the development of attachments then it would be expected that children from same-sex parents or single parents would develop differently from the children of heterosexual parents (which is unlikely). This suggests that the role of the father is not as important as other studies suggest.
This means role of the father is not clear or definitive. Therefore it is unclear whether fathers become primary attachment figures less often because of the different factors involved or because women have a biological predisposition (driven by hormones) towards being the primary caregiver. e.g. work-life balance, age, health, and attitudes toward the father’s gender roles, social roles of men and women.
Strengths of Animal Studies.
The findings of Lorenz’s research have influenced other areas of psychology, such as developmental psychology: Lorenz suggested that imprinting was irreversible which suggests that imprinting is controlled by biological factors and happens within a certain time frame. This has led to other psychologists (such as Bowlby) developing well-studied theories of attachment which also suggest that attachment takes place during a critical period and is a biological process.
Real-world applications:
Lack of parental bonding and nurture can have a detrimental effect on a child’s development.
Limitations of Animal Studies.
Cannot be generalised to humans:
Attachment in mammals, and specifically humans, is very different to that of bird species. Attachment in humans is a two-way process (formed by reciprocity and interactional synchrony): the mother attaches to the baby and the baby attaches to the mother. Birds can imprint onto inanimate objects meaning that it is a one-way relationship.
Other research has found that imprinting is changeable and not permanent:
One study found that chickens that had originally imprinted onto a rubber glove and tried to mate with rubber gloves, were able to have this reversed after spending more time with their own species.
Ethical issues:
Caused severe and lasting damage to animals that found it difficult to form relationships with other monkeys and displayed unsettling and abnormal behaviour. This means that Harlow’s study is not ethically sound. It is important to question whether the effects on the monkey outweigh the findings of the study and gains to attachment research.
Strengths of the Learning theory.
Learning theory can explain some parts of attachment in infants to a caregiver: Even though food may not be the main factor in attachment forming, it is clear that infants form an association with other factors (such as comfort, soothing, and nurture) with a caregiver.
Limitations of the learning theory.
Contradictory evidence: Harlow’s research (1959) with rhesus monkeys found that monkeys attached to a cloth ‘mother’ (made from wire) when food was provided by another source (the plain wire mother). This suggests that other factors are important in forming an attachment rather than an association with food.
Studies with human babies provide counter-evidence to the learning theory of attachment
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that babies formed their primary attachment to their mother despite the mother not being the caregiver who usually fed them.
Strengths of the strange situation.
Good predictive validity for children’s development:
Infants and toddlers assessed as securely attached (type B) tend to have better outcomes later in life.
Securely attached infants tend to have better mental health than those of type A and type C.
This suggests that the types of attachment developed by Ainsworth are real and this shows high validity in this study.
The Strange Situation shows good inter-rater reliability
Agreement was found in the observations of attachment types in 94% of cases. This high level of agreement may be because the research was carried out in controlled conditions. Good inter-rater reliability gives confidence that the attachment types assessed by the Strange Situation are not subjective.
Limitations of the strange situation.
The research was only carried out on middle-class infants in Western Europe and the USA: The Strange Situation is therefore culture-bound: it was developed in the UK and the USA and may only apply to these cultures.
The observation set up by Ainsworth lacks ecological validity:
Infants were placed in a strange and artificial environment. The episodes that took place are unlikely to happen in a real-life scenario. This means that the infant’s attachment behaviours may not be activated due to the artificial environment. The consequence of this is that some infants may be wrongly classified, reducing the validity of the findings.
Strengths of Romanian Orphanages.
Limitations of Romanian Orphanages.
Strengths of Adult relationships.
Limitations of adult relationships.
Strengths of Bowlbys mono tropic theory.
Studies supporting Bowlby’s monotropic theory include animal studies: Lorenz (1935) found that goslings formed attachments to the first moving thing that they saw after hatching, which suggests that attachment is an innate process. This supports Bowlby’s idea that attachment has developed as an evolutionary process to aid survival.
There is evidence to support the idea of social releasers:
Caregivers were instructed to ignore their baby’s social releases whereby the babies then became increasingly distressed. This suggests that babies use social releasers as a way to elicit attention and attachment to their caregiver. These findings support Bowlby’s theory of social releasers and their importance in forming an attachment to a caregiver.
Limitations of Bowlbys mono tropic theory.
Research suggests that babies form multiple attachments rather than one attachment:
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) propose that children form multiple strong attachments to a variety of caregivers from the age of 10- 11 months. This suggests that Bowlby’s monotropic theory is incorrect.
Infants can form attachments after the critical period:
Rutter et al. (2010) found, during studies of Romanian orphans, that although it is less likely that attachments are formed after the critical period of three to six months, attachments can form. This time of a child’s development is important for forming attachments as infants seem to be particularly receptive to forming attachments during three to six months. (sensitive period).
Strengths of cultural variations.
All studies assessed used the Strange Situation as a way of classifying attachment. Comparisons made are therefore using a standardised procedure. This means there is high reliability to the findings of Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg.
Limitations of cultural variations.
