Attachment: Evaluation Flashcards
1
Q
Caregiver -Infant Interactions AO3
A
- problems testing infant behaviour as they are in cosntant motion
- failure to replicate Meltzoff anf Moore eg Marian et al (live vs taped interactions)
+ intentionality supported - no response to inanimate object (Anravanel and DeYong) - individual differences - security of attachment associated with interactional synchrony (Isabella et al)
2
Q
Development of Attachment AO3
A
- unreliable data - mothers of less securely attached infants would be less sensitive and possibly less accurate in their reports, a systematic bias
- biased sample - working class population from 1960s, results may not generalise
- challenging monotropy - Rutter argued that all relationships equivalent
- cultural variations - infants raised in collectivist environment showed less maternal attachment than in individualist/family based homes (Sagi et al)
- stage theories of development - may be too inflexible
3
Q
Lorenz AO3
A
+ research support - imprinting on yellow rubber gloves (Guiton et al)
- criticisms of imprinting - may not be irreversible and may be little more than just learning
4
Q
Harlow AO3
A
- confounding variable - wire mother faces different, varied systematically with independent variable
- generalising to humans may not be justified but findings confirmed eg Schaffer and Emerson
- ethics - benefits may outweigh costs, but doesn’t challenge findings
5
Q
Learning Theory AO3
A
- animal studies - lack external validity because simplified view of human attachment
- attachment isn’t based on food - harlow showed it was contact comfort, supported by Schaffer and Emerson
+ learning theory can explain some aspects of attachment - attention and responsiveness are rewards - alternative explanation - bowlby
6
Q
Bowlbys Theory AO3
A
- attachment is adaptive - human infants form attachments when they start to be mobile
- a sensitive period rather than critical (Rutter et al)
+ multiple attachments - bowlbys views aren’t contradictory because secondary attachments contribute to one single internal working model
+ continuity hypothesis - securely attached infents later classed as more empathetic and more popular
7
Q
Strange Situation AO3
A
- other types of attachment - disorganised (type D) (Main and Solomon)
+ high reliability - inter-observer reliability > .94
+ real world applications - Circle of Security Project - low internal validity - children behave differently depending on which parent (Main and Solomon) though attachment type may be related to primary attachment figure
8
Q
Cultural Variations AO3
A
- results relate to countries yet within countries there are cultural differences eg rural v urban Japanese
- cross-cultural research - uses tools developed in one country in a different setting where it has a different meaning (imposed etic)
- culture bias - Rothbaum argues that attachment theory generally has a western bias
9
Q
Bowlby’s MDH AO3
A
- emotional rather than physical separation is harmful
+ support for long term effects - women who experienced early separation more liekly to experience depression later in life - individual differences - some children more resilient eg securely attached children in TB hospital
- deprivation v privation - loss of care may not have as serious consequences as total lack of attachment
10
Q
Romanian Orphan Studies AO3
A
- individual differences - some children appear to recover despite no apparent attachments within sensitive period
+ real life application - adoption should be as early as possible and then infants securely attached
+ logitudinal studies - show that some changes take a while to become apparent, current studies show some recovery possible - deprivation only one factor - most institutionalised children experience multiple ‘risks’ thus maternal deprivation shouldnt be over exaggerated
- effects may just be due to slower development - fact that children appear to recover suggests effects simply slow down development
11
Q
Influence of Early Attachment AO3
A
- correlational research - internal working model may not cause later relationship experiences, temperament may be intervening variable
- retrospective classification - childhood attachment type based on memory of childhood which may be inaccurate, though support from longitudinal study (Simpson et al)
- overly determinist - past attachment experiences do not always determine the course of future relationships
- low correlations - a meta-analysis of studoes suggest correlations between early attachments and later relationships may be as low as .10 (Fraley)