Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > attachment > Flashcards

attachment Flashcards

1
Q

Key ideas on Bowlbys attachment theory?

A

-attachment has evolved due to survival and reproductive benefits
-innate drive to attach to parents-due to long term benefits
-innate characteristcs of drives= things that we are born with(product of genetics)
-innate drive to attach to parent= is imprinting

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

What does Bowlbys evolution theory consist of?

A

-innate tendency to form attachment to parent
-tendency is adaptive advantage to survive
-critical period= how infants form attachments

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

ASCMI

A

-adaptive= makes us likely to survive-safe,food, warmth
-social releasers= unlock innate tendency for adults to care for them
1.physical= baby face and proportions
2.behavioural= crying,cooing

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

ASCMI
part 2

A

-crtitical period= up to 2 and a half years
if not formed attachment causes irreversible damage long term
e.g depression, aggressive, delingquency
-monotropy= first attachment is special e.g mother, primary caregiver

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

What are the two laws that are part of monotropy?

A

law of continuity= the more consistent a childs care is the better their atatchment
law of accumaltion= seperation from mother is negative ‘and the safest dose is therefore a zero dose’

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

ASCMI
part 3?

A

internal working model
-special mental schema
-childs future adult RS will be based on primary attachment

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

Evaluation begins: how is validity of monotropy challenged?

A

-lack validity
-babies later form multiple attachments
-first attach appears stronger
-but not very different from other attachments
-other attachments from family can also provide well e.g safe base
-incorrect to think theres a unique quality w only first attachment

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

support for social releasers?

A

-cute baby baby behavior elicts interaction from caregiver
-Brazelton et al= observed babies trigger interactions w adults
-primary attachments figures then instructed to ignore them
-babies became distressed & motionless
-so social realeasers are important in emotional development

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

the internal working model? evaluate

A

-bailey et al= assesed attachment in 99 mothers and their 1 yr old
-assesed attachment of the mothers to their own parents
-assesed baby attchment quality
-mothers w poor attachment to parents most likely had poor w babies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

counterpoint to internal working model

A

-other factors are being disregarded
-e.g anxiety socially in babies and adults
-may impact parenting
-bowlby may have overestimated the importance of internal working model

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what would the feminists say about bowlbys theory?

A
  • the laws of continuity and accumaltion have negative effects on babies emotions if seperated from mum
    -mothers may take the blame for things going on with their child
    -restricts some mums going to work
    (at the time bowlby said this tho, mothers werent as necessary,they even believed fathers could take on the role
    but there is some real world app to bowlbys ideas= key workers building attachment to particular babies.)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the aim and procedures of the strange situation

A

-aim = observe key attachment and assess babys attachment to caregiver.
-procedure = controlled ob ; lab and 2 way mirror
(watched in 7 diff scenarios lasting 3 mins)

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

whats is being assessed?

A

-promixity seeking
-exploration + secure base
-stranger anxiety
-seperation anxiety
-response to reunion

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

what is proximxity seeking?

A

-infant stays close to caregiver

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what is exploration + secure base?

A

-good attachment allows child to feel comfortable to explore

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

what is stranger anxiety?

A

-anxiety when stranger approaches

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

what is seperation anxiety?

A

-protest at seperation from caregiver

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

what is response to reunion?

A

-child reacts upon being re united with caregiver

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

what percentage are infants of each type of attachment in the UK?

A

-TYPE B = secure 60-75%
-TYPE A = insecure avoidant 20-25%
-TYPE C = insecure resistant 3%

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

What are the characteristics of secure attachment?

A

-explore happily
-regularly go back to caregiver (secure base)
-moderate separation/stranger anxiety
-accept comfort in reunion stage
type B

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

what are the characteristics insecure avoidant?

A

-little effort to make contact in reunion
-explore freely
-dont seek proxmixity or secure base
-little/no reaction when caregiver leaves
-little stranger anxiety
-type a

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

what are the characteristics of insecure resistant?

A

-type c
-seek greater promixity
-explore less
-high lvl stranger/seperation anxiety
-resist comfort when re untied

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

Evaluation of strange situation
Validity?

A

-predicts number of aspects of babys later development
-type B tend to have better outcomese e.g do better in school
-secure attachment tend to have better MH in adulthood
-insecure resistant and those not in type A,B OR C may have worse outcomes
- strange situation therefore has meaningful measurements of babys development

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

Evaluation of strange situation
counterpoint validity?

A

-some psychologists dont believe it measures attachment
-kaganc suggests anxiety lvls may account for variety in attachment in the SS
- may not accurately measure attachment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Evaluation of strange situation
good reliability

A

-good inter rater reliability
-BICK ET AL= observers agreed in attachment type in 94% of cases
-controlled conditions
-promixity seeking and stranger anxiety are large observable movements and crying and crawl
-SS doesnt rely on subjective judgements so can be repeated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Evaluation of strange situation
culture bound

A

-valid only some cultures
-diff culture = diff experiences
-Takahashi studied babies displayed high lvls of seperation anxiety so disproportional number seen as insecure resistant
-but high anxiety due to the Japanese culture (mother and baby seperation is rare)
-hard to know what its measuring out of europe and US

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Evaluation of strange situation
other attachment types?

A

-identified a type D
-type D a mix of resistant and avoidant
-type D unusual with severe neglect and abuse
-psychological disorders in adulthood

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

what is individualist community?

A

-western, inpendance, importance on individual

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

what is communist community?

A

-interdependance, work together, share, childrearing, groups live and work together

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

key point of the cross cultural variations in attachment?

A

-bowlby suggests attachment enhances survival
-secure attachment should then be most common for all despite culture (attachment is innate)
-if not every culture has secure attachment then attachment isnt innate and actually due to child rearing methods

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

what is the middle ground in cross cultural variations attachment?

A

-variation between cultures related to specific cultural child rearing practices but some common ground e.g dominance of secure attachment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

step one of SS?

A

-care giver takes infant into lab room to explore
-tests exploration and secure base

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

step two of SS?

A

-stranger enters and approaches the infant
-stranger anxiety

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

step three of SS

A

-the caregiver leaves unobtrusively and stranger interacts with infant
-tests separation and stranger anxiety

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

step four of SS

A

-caregiver returns and stranger leaves
-tests reunion and exploration/base

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

step five of SS

A

-caregiver leaves so infant is alone
-tests separation anxiety

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

step six of SS

A

-stranger enters and interacts w infant
-stranger anxiety

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

step seven of SS

A

-caregiver returns and greets infant
-tests reunion behavior

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

what did Van ljzendoom and kroonenberg do?

A

-study to look at secure, insecure avoidant and insecure resistant
-look at variations within cultures
-32 studies of SS
-8 countries
-1990 children
-meta analysed(analysed and weighed up)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

what were Van ljzendoom and kroonenberg findings?

A

-wide variation in attachment
-secure common
-proportion varied = 75% britain and 50% china
-individualist countries under 14%
-collectivist above 25%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

what did the italian study simonelli do?

A

-70 babies aged 12months
- in SS

42
Q

what were the findings of the italian study simonelli do?

A

-50% were secure
-36% insecure avoidant
-higher than previous studies(insecure a)
-this bc young mothers worked alot and turn to professional day care

43
Q

what did the korean study Jin et al do?

A

-ss on 87 babies
-most secure
-most insecure resistant and one avoidant
-similar to japan as they have similar child rearing styles

44
Q

what can we conclude from cultural variations?

A

-SECURE ATTACHMENT= innate, universal and wide in many cultures
-BUT cultural practices have infulence of attachment type.

45
Q

evaluation
what are confounding variables?

A

-not usually matched in methodolgy
-e.g confounding factors; poverty, class, age
-room and toys for exploration different
- non matching studies wont say much

46
Q

evaluation
indigenous researchers

A

-same background as participants
-avoid mis interpretations
-less chance of** language barrier**
-reduce bias e.g stereotypes
-good communication enhances validity

47
Q

evaluation
counterpoint to indigenous researchers

A

-morelli and tronwick were outsiders of america when gathering data
-difficulties when gathering out their culture so bias

48
Q

evaluation
imposed etic

A

-cant assume one ideas culture works for other
-britain and us if theres lack of affection in reunion then its AVOIDANT **
-germany-** seen as INPENDENCE **
-MEASURED behavior not the same meaning in all countries

49
Q

evaluation
competing explanations

A

-alternative explanation
-media presents particular view of how parents and babies should behave
-may override traditional cultural differences in the way some kids are brought up

50
Q

What type of attachment are germany, japan and USA?

A

Germany- type A
Japan-type C
USA- type B

51
Q

What was bowlbys aim in the 44 thieves study?

A

-investigate the link between maternal deprivation and affection less psychopathy

52
Q

What was bowlbys method in the 44 thieves study?

A

-44 teen thieves and 44 other children(control grp)
-attending guidance clinic london
-5-16 yrs, boys
-natural experiment(interview)

53
Q

What was bowlbys procedures in the 44 thieves study?

A

-interviewed thieves for signs of affectionless pscyhopathy
-e.g lack of shame, guilt for actions
-interviewed families too to ask if they had prolonged separation from mother

54
Q

What was bowlbys FINDINGS in the 44 thieves study?

A

-control grp had 96% not separated from mum
-however control group considered ‘normal’ but they were still patients at his clinic?
-only 4% control group had frequent separation from mother compared to stealing children at 29%.
-however affection less thieves had way more at 86%
-however most thieves found to have guilt at 30 compared to 14 with no remorse.

55
Q

Evaluate bowlby 44 thieves study?

A

-huge age ranges
-only in london and only boys(not very representative)
-combined orphaned children with those only left by their mum to go work(two very different cases of separation)
-natural experiments have EVs
-control group wasent 100% healthy (from his clinic)
-interviewed kids(no informed consent)
-interviewed families(results affected by social desirability and demand characteristics

56
Q

What is the disruption of attachment in WW2?

A

-kids became homeless
-evacuated for protection
-woman encouraged to work for war effort so kids sent to daycare
-wealthy kids had nannies but away from mother(so poor social, intellectual, emotional development)

57
Q

what was bowlbys hypothesis?

A

-if no mother- child bond in first few years = permanent damage

58
Q

What did Bowlby suggest by his hypothesis?

A

-prolonged separation from carer has negative effects
-theres critical period of 2.5 years
-no adequate substitute attachment causes psychological damage

59
Q

What are the effects of seperation on development? intellectually

A

-intellectual (mental retardation - low IQ)
-Goldfarb= iQ high in adopted kids rather than those who remained in adoption centre(less emotional care)

60
Q

What are the effects of seperation on development? emotionally

A

-affectionless psychopathy
-dont experience guilt or strong emotions for others
-HOWEVER, bowlbys 44 thieves probably had no money, poverty and struggled to survive so had to steal

61
Q

What can a graph on affectionless psychopathy and maternal separation tell you?

A

-strong correlation
-however there may be EVs e.g
trauma, poverty, pro theft family norms

62
Q

evaluation of maternal dep
evidence for maternal dep
strengths

A

-skeels and dye= lack of emotional care can harm intellectual development
-children with low IQ improved after adoption
-tested by SKODAK and SKEELS after 1.5yrs of orphan grp fell but adopted group rose from 64 to 92 points
-RUTTER ET AL 2011- IQ lower for those in romanian orpahange as opposed to those adopted

63
Q

evaluation of maternal dep
-real world application
strengths

A

-change in care manuals- began recommending plenty of love
-take into account emotional needs
-not moved around foster homes allows for attachment to form
-encourage visiting kids in hosp

64
Q

evaluation of maternal dep
controversial application
weakness

A

-mother encouraged to stay home, contradicted gender equality
-evidence was very flawed, some confounding variables not considered affecting results

65
Q

evaluation of maternal dep
rutter?

A

-bowlby mixed deprivation(loss of mother) with privation (not having one at all)

66
Q

evaluation of maternal dep
lewis?

A

-studied young people and found no link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation

67
Q

evaluation of maternal dep
koluchova?

A

-studied twin** czech boys- found at 7 severe neglect and no adult care**
-recovered as they created early bonding and language opportunities for eachother.

68
Q

How are children conditions in institutions?

A

-no attachment figure
-bored
-no social life
-agressive
-less intelligent
-not cared for well
-less toys
-less interaction

69
Q

how is children conditions compared to in family care?

A

-strong emotional attachment
-more social
-cared for well

70
Q

what is institution?

A

-place like hospital or orphanage children live there for long periods with little emotional care

71
Q

why were romanian kids put in orphanges?

A

-issue began under communist ruler Nicolai ceausesu who banned abortion and use of contraception at a time of severe food and energy shortage

72
Q

what happen to these romanian kids?

A

-parents left newborns thousands put in underfunded care orphanges
-parents told their kid would be well looked after

73
Q

what was life like in the orphanages?

A

-not enough staff
-no toys
-go mad
-confined
-starve
-dumped
-crippled and rocking motions
-hands tied
-mental and physical strain

74
Q

what happened to some orphans?

A

-18 orphans would be kicked onto streets
to feed themselves
-some adopted abroad e.g Alexandru wolf is now prepping for exams and life after school

75
Q

What was Rutter et al’s procedure?
(ERA study- english and romanian adoptee)

A

-followed grp of 165 romanian orphans
-orphans adopted by families in UK
-wanted to measure extent to which good care made up for early experiences
-measured physical, cognitive and emotional development 4-25 year olds
-grp of 52 children adopted around the same time from UK were control group

76
Q

what did rutter et al find?

A

-when kids arrived half adoptees had delayed development and malnourished
-at 11years old kids had diff rates of recovery
-mean IQ before 6 months was 102
-comapred to 86 for those adopted between 6mnths and 2 years
-differences remained at 16 years old
-ADHD common in 15 and 22-25 yrs old samples
-those adopted after 6 mnths showed disinhibited attachment e.g attention seeking, clingy to all adults familiar and unfamiliar
-those adopted before 6months rarely showed this behaviour

77
Q

zeanah et al procedure?

A

-buacharest early intervention
-assess attachment in 95 romanian kids 12-31months
-spent most of the time in institutional care
-comapred to 50 children who never have(control group)
-attachment type measured using strange situation
-carers asked ab any behvaiours e.g clingy, attention seeking inappropirtaly at adults

78
Q

findings from zeanah et al?

A

-74% of control group classed as securely attached in SS
-only 19% of institutional grp
-disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of instituional grp as opposed to less than 20% control grp

79
Q

what were the effects of institutionalisation?
(disinhibited attachment)

A

-disinhibited attachment- shown by those who spent early life in instituion (were equally friendly and affectionate to family and strangers)
-most most kids in second year are meant to show stranger anxiety
-RUTTER ET AL= due to the fact they lived with multiple carers in sensitive period for attachment
not enough time to form secure attachment

80
Q

what were the effects of institutionalisation?
(intellectual disability)

A

-most showed this when they arrived in britain
-but those adopted before 6 months caught up w control group by 4 years old

81
Q

can intellectual disability be recovered from?

A

-can be as long as it happens before 6 months(age at which attachment forms)

82
Q

what were the strengths of the studies?
(real world application)

A

-improved psychologists understanding of effects of early institutional care and how to prevent worst of these effects
-led to improvements looking after kids
-now have 1 or 2 key workers playing central role in emotional care
-more effort in adoption
-so those in care have a chance to develop normal attachments.

83
Q

what were the weaknesses of the studies?(lack of adult data)

A

-ERA studies looked at kids from early to mid 20s
-now we dont have answeres to some questions
on the long term effects
-e.g mental health and adult romantic relationships
-long time to gather data as its a longitudinal study- not fully aware of long term effects rn

84
Q

what were the weaknesses of the studies?(socially sensitive)

A

-show late adopted kids have poorer development.
-parents, teachers and other may have lower expectations or treat them different - self fufilling prophecy

85
Q

what were the strengths of the study?(few confounding variables)

A

-there were other studies before romanian study but they experienced high degree of trauma, difficult to dis intangle effects of neglect,physical abuse and bereavement from those in institutional care
-those in orphanage were handed over by loving parents who couldnt keep them
-results less likely due to early negative experience
so HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY

86
Q

what were the weaknesses of the studies?(counter point to few confounding variables)

A

-however those from romanian orphanage may have introduced dff confounding varibables as quality of care in institutions is poor
-so negative effects may have been caused by poor care rather than institutional care per se.

87
Q

what is the internal working model?

A

-acts as a template for future childhood and adult RS.

88
Q

What were the influences of early attachment on later relationships?

A

-quality of friendships= kerns(1994) found
-securely attached children= best quality friendship
-insecurely attached= difficulties with friendship

89
Q

bullying behavior myron- wilson and smith(1998)?

A

-secure- unlikely
-avoidant- vicitms
-resistant- bullies

90
Q

rs in adulthood?
(friendship and romantic)?

A

-secure= as infants - best quality friendship and romantic relationships
-avoidant- struggle with intimacy
-resistant- problems maintain friendships

91
Q

what did hazen and shaver do?

A

-looked at association between attachment and adult RS
-analysed 620 replies to a ‘love quiz’
-first section= assesed current most important RS
-second section= assesed general love experiences e.g number of partners
-third section= assessed attachment type

92
Q

what did hazen and shaver find?

A

-secure(56%)= good and longer lasting RS, trusting and close
-avoidant(25%)= jealousy, fear of intimacy, uncomfortable being close to their partner and fear commitment
-resistant(19%)= fear rejection- worried partner may leave, strong desire to maintain close, believe they arent receiving enough love.

93
Q

what can you conclude from hazen and shavers findings?

A

-findings of attachment behavior are reflected in romantic

94
Q

what did bailey et al find?
(related to relationship with parents)

A

-majority of women recreated same quality of attachment they had as a child with their own babies

95
Q

what did quinton et al find with poor parenting?

A

-found ex- institutionalized women had difficulties as parents - cycle of privation
-interacted less w their child
-had kids who spent time in care

96
Q

what are the strenghts of early experinces affecting later life? (research support)

A

-strong RS between early attachment type and later development
-depends on type of attachment and later development
-insecure avoidant seems to convey fair mild disadvantages
-disorganised relates with later mental disorder
-secure attachment provides advantages for future development but disorganised disdvantages.

97
Q

what are the strenghts of early experiences affecting later life? (opportunity)

A

-by knowing someones attachment type we can intervene and help with development BUT we may become too pessimistic and create SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY.

98
Q

what is the counterpoint to research support?

A

-regensburg longitudinal study followed 43 individuals from 1 years old
-at 16 years old they underwent adult interview for attachment and no continuity was found
-not clear to what extent quality of early attachment predicts later attachment e.g important factors
-

99
Q

what are the weaknesses of early experiences affecting later life? (validty issues with retrospective studies)

A

-doesnt assess early life
-instead questions are asked to adults ab RS with their parents
-identifies their attachment type
-relies on honesty
-hard to know if whats being assesed is early attachment or adult so may be confounding variables- making it meanigless

100
Q

what are the weaknesses of early experiences affecting later life? (confounding variables)

A

-relation between early experience and later development may have confounding variables
-e.g parenting styles or genetic
-cant be sure early attachment affects later attachment or if other factors involved

101
Q

what are the weaknesses of early experiences affecting later life? (self report)

A

-less valid method
-people lie
-but they are reliable
-but risks distress(sensitive topics)

102
Q

what are the weaknesses of early experiences affecting later life? (internal working model)

A

-all studies show theres a link between attachment and later RS(correlation) but no real account given of how IWM forms
-cognitive neuroscience - early experiences do affect the brain developement.

Psychology (28 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions