Attachments 2 Flashcards
(51 cards)
1
Q
Who devised the strange situation
A
Ainsworth and Bell
2
Q
Age range of infants in the strange situation
A
9–18 months
3
Q
What is tested in the strange situation
A
Stranger anxiety and separation anxiety
4
Q
Strange situation procedure
A
- 9x9 foot square
- Marked into 16 squares to record infants movements
- 7 episodes for situations
- Controlled observation
- Lab setting
5
Q
Strange situation episodes
A
- Parent sits while infant explores the room (parent as secure base)
- Stranger enters, talks to parent, and approaches infant (stranger anxiety)
- Parent leaves the room leaving infant and stranger together (separation and stranger anxiety)
- Parent returns, comforts infant, stranger leaves (reunion behaviour)
- Parent leaves infant alone (separation anxiety)
- Stranger enters to offer comfort (stranger anxiety)
- Parent returns to offer comfort (reunion behaviour)
6
Q
Strange Situation: Behaviour is recorded by group of observers every __ seconds.
Notes down which of the following behaviours are displayed on a scale of _-_:
1. _______ and _______-_______ behaviours
2. ______-___________ behaviours
3. ________ and ___________-________ behaviours
4. _______ and __________-_________ behaviours
5. ______ behaviours
A
15 seconds
1-7
- Proximity and contact-seeking behaviours
- Contact-maintaining behaviours
- Proximity and interaction-avoiding behaviours
- Contact and interaction-resisting behaviours
- Search behaviours
7
Q
Attachment style A
A
Insecure Avoidant
Willingness to explore: High
Stranger anxiety: Low
Separation anxiety: Indifferent
Behaviour on reunion: Avoids contact
Percentage in category: 22%
8
Q
Attachment style B
A
Secure
Willingness to explore: High
Stranger anxiety: High
Separation anxiety: Some easy to soothe
Behaviour on reunion: Enthusiastic
Percentage in category: 66%
9
Q
Attachment style C
A
Insecure Resistant
Willingness to explore: Low
Stranger anxiety: High
Separation anxiety: Distressed
Behaviour on reunion: seeks contact and then rejects
Percentage in category: 12%
10
Q
Type A characteristics
A
- Avoid social interaction and intimacy
- little response to separation and does not seek proximity to caregiver
- Little to no tendency to cling or resist being put down
- happy to explore without caregiver
11
Q
Type B characteristics
A
- harmonious and cooperative interactions with caregiver
- less likely to cry inconsolably if their caregiver leaves
- when anxious, seeking close bodily contact and are easily soothed
- reluctant to leave caregiver
- comfortable with social interaction
- caregiver as secure base
12
Q
Type C characteristics
A
- seek and reject intimacy and social interaction
- responds to separation with immediate and intense distress
- on reunion may angrily resist being picked up while still staying close
13
Q
Strange Situation weaknesses
A
- Does not recognise other types of attachment (type D insecure-disorganised, found by Main and Solomon)
- Type D shows inconsistent patterns of social behaviour
- Ethics of harming the infants (uncontrollable crying at episode 6)
- Questionable validity, results change based on parent present
- Low ecological validity
- Caregiver is aware of observation
- Ainsworth is American: cultural bias may affect what is considered “secure”
14
Q
Strange Situation strengths
A
- inter-rater reliability
- 0.94 agreement between raters
- real-world application
- Cooper et al Circle of Security project, secure attachment went from 32% to 40%
15
Q
Internal working model
A
Mental representation of the child’s relationship with their primary caregiver
16
Q
Role of internal working model
A
- what future relationships should be like
- what to expect from others
- gives insight into caregivers behaviour to influence the caregiver
- sets expectations for a loving relationship
17
Q
Prior and Glaser: effects of different attachment styles
A
- Secure: Interpersonal harmony, ambition, and less emotional dependence
- Avoidant: Aggressiveness
- Resistant: Greater anxiety and withdrawn behaviour
18
Q
Sroufe et al (Minnesota study)
A
- Early attachment affects later social behaviour
- Secure attachment —> higher social competence later in childhood
- Less isolation, higher popularity
- Expectation that others are friendly and trusting
19
Q
Myron-Wilson and Smith
A
- Questionnaire on 196 children aged 7-11
- Secure attachment —> Less likely to be involved in bullying
- Avoidant —> Victims
- Resistant —> Bullies
20
Q
Early childhood relationships evaluation
A
+ Minnesota study is longitudinal so conclusions are drawn easier
- Myron-Wilson and Smith’s study used questionnaires that are prone to social desirability bias
21
Q
Hazan and Shaver “Love Quiz”
A
- quiz in a small town newspaper
Group 1
- 620 responses
- 205 from men, 415 from women
Group 2
- 108 students
- 38 men, 70 women
- Answered more items based on the ‘self’ side of the mental model
- also measured lonliness
22
Q
Love Quiz Results
A
- Secure: 56% in both groups
- Avoidant: 23% in 1, 25% in 2
- Resistant: 19% in 1, 20% in 2
- Securely attached pps had longer lasting relationships and were less likely to divorce. They also believed in lasting love and consider others to be trustworthy
- Avoidant pps were more doubtful of the durability of love, and maintained that a love partner is unnecessary for happiness. Also tended to reveal jealousy and fear of intimacy
- Both insecure types are vulnerable to loneliness, though resistant is more affected
- Correlation between attachment style and memories of received parenting
23
Q
Bailey et al
A
- 99 mothers take an adult attachments interview
- their babies are assessed via strange situation
- found that mothers are likely to have same attachment style to their mothers as their babies have to them
24
Q
Internal Working Model Evaluation
A
- conflicting evidence (Zimmerman: little relationship between infant attachment and adolescent attachment)
- validity: self report techniques are used, could show social desirability bias
- Hard to infer cause and effect
25
Types of culture
Individualistic and Collectivist
26
Simonella
- Done in Italy
- 50% securely attached, 36% avoidant
- Due to increase of working women and professional childcare
27
Jin et al
- Done in Korea
- Similar amount of secure and insecure to other countries
- Within insecure, many more are resistant than avoidant
28
Tronick et al
- African Efe tribe in Zaire
- Infants looked after by many different women by day, slept with mothers at night
- Showed monotropic attachment to their mother
29
Takahashi
- Done in Japan
- No evidence of avoidant attachment
- 32% resistant
- High distress on being left alone (90% of infants cases had to stop the study)
- Infants are rarely separate from mothers
30
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg
- *Meta-Analysis*
- Analyse 32 different studies in 8 different countries
- Highest secure: UK, 75%
- Lowest secure: China, 50%
- Highest resistant: Israel, 29%
- Lowest resistant: UK, 3%
- Highest avoidant: West Germany, 35%
- Lowest avoidant: Japan, 5%
31
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg findings
- **Secure attachment** is the *most common* attachment style
- Insecure-avoidant is more common in individualistic societies
- Insecure-resistant is more common in collectivist societies
- Variation between studies in the same country was 150% more than variation between countries
- **Secure attachment** is *innate* and *biological*, as it is most common regardless of culture
- Culture rather affects whether the insecure are avoidant or resistant
32
Cultural variations evaluation
**_Strengths_**
- Large sample size, 2000 babies overall
- High internal validity because of this
**_Weaknesses_**
- Countries have many different cultures within them (the study compared countries when it was meant to compare cultures)
- Children raised in an urban environment in Japan had more similar attachments to Western children
- Western based theories are imposed upon other cultures, (ie, separation anxiety and lack of pleasure on reunion could be a sign of independence rather than insecurity)
33
Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis (*Bowlby*)
The continual presence of mother-like figure is essential for normal psychological development
34
Maternal deprivation critical period
First 30 months
35
What types of development does maternal deprivation affect
1. Intellectual
2. Emotional
36
Intellectual development and maternal deprivation
- Low IQ if maternally deprived
- **Goldfarb:** children who remained in institutions (like orphanages) had much lower IQs
37
What is deprivation
Extended separation where an element of care is lost
38
Emotional development and maternal deprivation
- More likely to develop into *affectionless psychopaths*
39
44 Thieves Study (*Bowlby*)
**_Groups_**
- 44 teen criminals accused of stealing
- 44 Non-Criminal but emotionally disturbed teens (control group)
**_Procedure_**
- Interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy
- Interviewed families to establish any prolonged early separations from their mothers
**_Findings_**
- 30% of the thieves were *affectionless psychopaths*
- 86% of these affectionless psychopaths had experienced prolonged separations in the critical period
- 17% of the non-psychopaths in the thieves group had maternal deprivation
- Control group had 5% deprivation
40
Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis Evaluation
- **Animal study support:** Levy et al showed that separating baby rats from their mother for even a day can permanently affect social development
- **Poor evidence:** evidence used is poor, as groups include children growing up in *poor quality orphanages*, so would have generally been deprived. The 44 thieves study had Bowlby carry out the interviews, so there may have been *interviewer bias*.
- **Counter evidence:** Lewis replicated Bowlby’s study with 500 young people. Found that prolonged early separations *did not predict criminality* of difficulty forming close relationships.
- **Damage is reversible:** Bowlby argues that the effects are not reversible. Kulochova reported the case of twin boys locked in a cupboard by their stepmother for 18 months to 7 years (*isolation*). However, they were looked after by loving adults afterwards, and appeared to have *recovered fully*
- **Did not distinguish *deprivation* and *privation*:** Severe long term damage is more likely the effect of privation, where no attachment forms in the first place. Deprivation is when the attachment figure is lost after the attachment is formed.
41
Relationship between attachment and childhood relationships
- **Sroufe et al Minnesota study** linking early attachment to social competence later on
- Secure attachment linked to higher empathy and popularity, while being less isolated
- May be because they have higher expectations that others are friendly and trusting
- **Myron-Wilson and Smith** assessing attachment types and bullying
- 196 children aged 7-11
- Insecure-avoidant were more likely to be victims
- Insecure-resistant were more likely to be bullies
42
Attachment and Childhood relationships evaluation
+ Minnesota study is longitudinal as it follows the same children through their lives (strong conclusions can be drawn)
\- Myron-Wilson had flawed methodology, *standard questionaries* were used which can be victim to *social desirability bias*
43
Institutionalisation
When children are raised in an institution, where they cannot be looked after by parents/caregivers in a normal family
44
What brings negative consequences with instituationalisation
1. Adopting rules/norms of the institution that may impair functioning
2. Loss of personal identity
45
Rutter and Songua-Barke
- 165 Romanian Orphans
- Tested at regular intervals (4, 6, 11, and 15) to assess physical, cognitive and social development
**_Three Groups_**
1. 54 adopted before 6 months
2. 57 Adopted between 6 months and 2 years
3. 54 Adopted between 2-4 years
46
English and Romanian Orphans (*ERA*) study findings
- At time of adoption, Romanian orphans were *behind on all measures (physical, cognitive, social)*
- Severe malnourishment and signs of retardation
- *some caught up* by the age of **4**, mostly those *adopted before 6 months*
- Those adopted *between 2-4* were more likely to have mental health issues
- Those adopted *after 6 months* showed signs of **disinhibited attachment** (indiscriminate attention seeking and clingy behaviour directed at all adults, whether familiar or not)
- Likely due to *having many carers* that they dont see often enough to form a secure attachment
**_Average IQs at age 11_**
1. Adopted before 6 months: 102
2. 6 months to 2 years: 86
3. 2-4 years: 77
- **Poor conditions** and **spending longer time** in an institution leads to *long term consequences*
47
*ERA* study evaluation
- Conditions of Romanian orphanages is unknown (speculative)
- Children *cannot consent* to taking part in the study
- **Natural experiment**, cannot control *extraneous variables*
48
Le Mare and Audet
- 36 Romanian Orphans adopted in Canada
- Physically smaller at 4 and a half years, difference disappeared at 11
- Suggests full recovery is possible
49
Zeanah et al
- Comparing *95 Romanian children* who had spent *90% of their lives in an orphanage* to 50 children who were never in an institution (control)
- 12-31 months in age
- Assessed via Strange Situation
- 74% in control group were secure, compared to 19% of the Romanian children
- Most were Insecure-Disorganised (65%)
- 44% showed *disinhibited attachment*
50
Effects of institutionalisation
- Physical underdevelopment (Gardner showed that it is lack of emotional care rather than nourishment that causes *deprivation dwarfism*, leading to smaller size physically)
- Mental retardation
- Disinhibited attachment
- Quasi autism
- Poor parenting (Quinton et al, comparing 50 women who were raised in an institution vs normal, they struggled to be good parents)
51
Institutionalisation Evaluation
**_Strengths_**
- *Real World Application:*, can help to raise children better in institutions, making sure a smaller number of people play a central role in a child’s life
- *Longitudinal Studies:* easier to understand effects
**_Weaknesses_**
- Lack of consent
- Psychological harm: May cause worry to be in a long term study
- Individual differences: not everyone is unable to recover from the effects of
