ATTACHMENTS 2.0

Question 1

What were the aims of ainsworth and bell?

Answer 1

1970
-> called strange situation
to produce a method of assessing quality of attachment
-> inv indiv diff (i.e wether attachment styles differ from one indiv to another)

Question 2

what was the procedure?

Answer 2

100 middle class american infants + mothers
controlled observations during set of 7 predtermined activities
-> took 3 mins
-> designed incr exposure to sep + str anx
obsv made using 2way mirror
obs recorded 5 key beh during activities
-> stranger anx
-> sep anx
reunion beh
lvls of exploration + safe base beh
proximity seeking - how close child needs to be to M to feel safe

Question 3

what does safe base behaviour mean?

Answer 3

if child is looking back to mother

-> check if still there

Question 4

when can stranger anx be observed?

Answer 4

whenever stranger in room

-> when s tries to interact w b

Question 5

when can sep anx be obsrvd?

Answer 5

when mother leaves room

Question 6

when can reunion beh be obsrved?

Answer 6

when mother enters room again

Question 7

when can lvls of exploration and safe base beh be observed?

Answer 7

when mother is in the room with baby

Question 8

when can proximity seeking be observed?

Answer 8

when mother is in room

Question 9

what were the findings of the strange situation?

Answer 9

70% securely attached- expl room but reg returned back to cg -> use of sfe base. subdued when mum left .. stopped playing + cried
-> moderate sep anx
greeted m pos on return usually make physcial contact + easily calmed
moderate avoidance of stranger + wary but comfortable when m present
treat m and s very differently
15% insec avoidant not concerned by m absence .. carried on playing + didnt cry. showed little interest on return. did not seek contact. little sep and str anx, avoided stranger.. treated m + s sme way. explored freely(high) but not use m as sfe base
15% insec ambivalent/resistant -> intense dstress on sep + rejected comfort on return.. often hitting
not comforted by m on return. intense s anx. alternated between seeking proximity more than other types and wanting distance. sought greater proximity to others.. lowest lvl of exploration

Question 10

conclusions on strange situation?

Answer 10

there are sig diff betw infants

most american c sec attach

Question 11

2 stregnths of ss?

Answer 11

-> strongly predictive of lter development.
b assessed as sec attach -> better outcomes in many areas.. school to romantic rel + freinds
insec resistant attach is associated w worse outcomes incl bullying.
-> good reliabiltiy
shows high inter-rater reliabiltiy
… diff obs watch sme c in SS
ss takes palce under controlled conditions + beh categroies easy to obs

Question 12

3 weaknesses of ss?

Answer 12

ss critisied for being ethnocentric, as culture bound … does not have sme meaning in countries outside USA +western eu
-> cultural diff in childhood are liekly to mean c respond diff during ss -> Takahashi 1990 tested but did not work in J as mothers rarely sep from b .. high sep anx
-> wronglyfully identified as resistant
israel + west germany
Confounding variables.. could be measuring temperament instead -> ability to deal w stressful situations .. could be not measuring attachment type but Temp.. as temperament can genetically infl childspersonality
-> atleast 1 more attach tupe Main and SOLOMON 1986
attach types did not fall into the 3
atypical attachment commonly known disorganised attachment-> displayed mixture of resistant + avoidant beh

Question 13

who researched cultural vareiations in attachments?

Answer 13

Van Ijzendoorn
simonella et al
Jin et al

Question 14

what 5 factors also affects attachments?

Answer 14

cross-cultural research
inter cultural differnces
intra cultural differences
individualistic countries
collectivist countries

Question 15

cross cultural reseach?

Answer 15

r into one phenomenon in diff cultures to find similarites + diff

Question 16

inter cultural diff?

Answer 16

diff between cultures

Question 17

intra cultural diff?

Answer 17

diff within a culture e.g diff between sale +alty

Question 18

individualistic cultures def?

Answer 18

cultures where the needs + happiness of individuals are seen as most important (e.g USA)

Question 19

collectivist cultures def?

Answer 19

c where needs and happiness of the group (family, tribe etc) are seen as most important e.g Japan

Question 20

what was the aim of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg?

Answer 20

to inv how attach type differ from country to country

Question 21

proceure of Van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg?

Answer 21

used meta analysis
compared results of 32 studies used in SS in 8 diff countries
total of 2000 infants
looked at west germany, GB netherlands sweden, israel japan china usa

Question 22

waht were the findings of van ijzendoorns and kroonenberg

Answer 22

most common attachment type was securely attach and least common ambivalent overall
general pattern for type A avoidant -> see more avoidant c than expected in individualistic countries
general pattern for type c resistant -> we see less ambiv c than exp in collectivist countires
Van also found diff within cultures e.g 2 japan studies one had no type A avoidant b whereas second had around20% … bc of intra cultural diff
Israel highest numb of insec residtant

Question 23

conclusion of van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg r?

Answer 23

sec attached type b most common type of attach across all cultures
attach styles vary from one culture to another
greater the variation within cultures sugg that sub-cultural comparisons studies may be more valid than cross cultural comparisons

Question 24

what was simonella et all study?

Answer 24

study in italy
see if proportions of b of diff attach types still matches those found in prev studies
r assessed 76 12 month olds using SS
50% sec, 36% insec avoidant
lower rate of sec attach than has been found in prev studies
r sugg bc of incr no of mothers of v young c work long hrs .. uses proffessional childcare
suggests cultural changes can make dramatic diff to patterns of sec + insecure attachents

Question 25

jin et al study?

Answer 25

study in korea
to compare proportions of attachment types in korea compared to other studies
SS used to87 c
-> overall proportions of insec + sec b sim to those in most coountries
most inf were sec
however more of those classified as insec attach were resistant
only 1 child was avoidant
distribution sim to distribution of attach types found in j (van ijzendoorns r)
… j and k have similar child rearing styles
.. similarity may be expl in terms if child rearing styles

Question 26

pos of r into cultural variation in attachment?

Answer 26

van iz=jzendoorns r is a substantial meta analysis .. considers attachment beh of very large no of inf (2000)
-> findings of r more confidently generalised to inf in other cultures around wrold
-> Bowlbly expl for cultural similarities is due to attachments being innate + universal
… producing sme kind of beh all over world

Question 27

neg of r into cultural variations in attchment

Answer 27

van ijzendoorn + kroonenberg did not actually compare cultures but instead w countries.
problem bc within each country there are multiple sub cultures .. e.g japan tokyo had patternes of atatch types sim to western cultures
whereas rural j had more resistant insec.. concl drawn about whole countries may not be meaningful
-> over half of thir 32 studies were carried out in US
.. refl dominance by America in r in the area
27 of studeis were carried out in individualistic cultures adn only 5 collectivist
.. sample does not truly rep each type of culture
-> ainsworth SS was developed in america .. may be msot suited to studying attach types in america
.. not valid for countires like israel japan and western germany

Question 28

how do the findings of cultural variation in attachment relate to child rearing methods in diff cultures?
japan

Answer 28

b bought up in diff ways and diff attributes + qualities may be encouraged in them depending on values of that culture
e.g Takahashi 1990
proc -> repeated SS on 60 middle class j c
found..
68% sec attached. 0% isnec avoidant, 32% insec resistnat
many obvstional diff as j infants much more disturbed after being left alone as barely sep from mother
-> .. reacted most violently e tears after m left.. were said to have “high sep anx”
-> many wrongfully identified as resistant due to stress of SS, wehn actually securely attach
-> for maj of inf the first step of SS had to be stopped - wehre c left alone bc they were very disturbed..did not work

Question 29

how do the findings of cultural variation in attachment relate to child rearing methods in diff cultures?
israel

Answer 29

b brought up in israel wehre they lived in small groups + rarely eposed to str
.. protested v violently when confronte w stranger
-> not used to seeing str
-> wrongfully indentifed as ambivalent
-> due to hgih str anx

Question 30

how do the findings of cultural variation in attachment relate to child rearing methods in diff cultures?
west germany?

Answer 30

independance highly valued + ecouraged

• > b shwed little distress on sep w mother
• > wrongfully identified as avoidant

Question 31

what was Bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation?

Answer 31

bowlby claimed children needed to have a warm intimate continuous relationship w their mothers or primary cg in frist 2.5 yrs of their life
occasionally short sep could be tolerated if good qual sub care provided
-> whcih had to meet all childs physical + emotional needs
if longterm sep or many short term sep ocured (law of accumalted separations) -> lead to maternal deprivation
-> c’s LT developemnt could be affected
b said first 30 motnhs of childs life most ritical fro avoiding sep -> c could be susceptible to maternal dep up to 5 yrs of age. B claimed maternal dep can cause 5 follwoing problems within development

Question 32

separation def?

Answer 32

period of time child spends away from attach fig

may be short or long term

Question 33

deprivation def?

Answer 33

lack of smth and consequences of this lack

e.g a lack of consistent primary care giver

Question 34

affectionless pyschopathy def

Answer 34

a behavioural disorder where smone has no ability to experience shame or guilt
alcks a social conscience
.. “may find it easier” to commit a crime as strong emotions e.g guilt dont stop them

Question 35

what is an example of good quality substitute care?

Answer 35

foster home instead of an instititon

Question 36

what can maternal deprivation cause? (5)

Answer 36

inabiltiy to make attachments w others .. childhoof + adulthood relationships affected
affectionless pyschopathy .. more liekly to commit crime
intellectual retardation … perform badly in iq tests, exams etc
bedwetting
depression

Question 37

waht else was found about the damages mentioned above?

Answer 37

damage is permanent unless situation can be reversed during critical period (2.5 yrs of life)
bowlby stressed the imp of a monotropic bond as still fromed basis for future relationships (IWM)

Question 38

pos 3 of maternal dep theory of bowbly

Answer 38

harlow found isolation affected monkeys abiltiy to make attachment later with own offspring + other monkeys in later life… support threoy of maternal dep hypoth
-> suggests affects the monkeys attachments but has an issue of extrapolation of findings over monkeys onto humans
->bowlby study of 44 thieves found 86% of theives diagnosed as affectionless pyschos had exp prolonged sep .. sugg maternal dep may have played a part in this
… supports idea that maternal dep could lead to more likely to commit crimes due to being an AP
however sample very small .. cannot rep whole pop .. shoudl be approached w caution
-> Goldfarb found infants adopted later rather than earlier had lower cognitive ability, IQ scores adn an inabiltiy to from attachments
-> supports the hypoth claims about relationships impacts and intellectual retardation

Question 39

weakeness of maternal dep theory of bowlby? (2)

Answer 39

many studies in support of hypothesis are from children who were raised in insituitions
-> deprived in many ways
.. perhaps it wasnt the maternal dep but some other type of deprivation -> led to maladjustment
which is failure to cope with the demands of a normal social environment.
-> some infatns recovered from dep which disputes bowlbys claim that effects are permanent
e.g b found c who had exp prolonged sep from parents during critical period whilst being treated in hos for Tuberculosis
had no diff in terms of problems forming social relationships compared to control grp
-> had nomral cog devel .. goes agaisnt main ideas of theory

Question 40

what was the romanian orphan studies on the effect of insitutionalisation?

Answer 40

Rutter et al

Zeanah the bucharest early intervention project

Question 41

privation def?

Answer 41

the failure to develop attachment during early childhood
more serious than depr bc in depr they have a chance to from attachemnts whereas privation, c do not have chance to form them

Question 42

insituitionalisation def?

Answer 42

can happen at any age
-> the effect of living in an instuition for a long continuous time
more likely if the insitution does not provide emotional care during stay
this can affect 5 beh, intellect, emotional resp + general developments of attachment + can make c vulnerable

Question 43

disinhibted atatchment def?

Answer 43

a atype of insec attachment that leads to c being unable to form close, LT attachments
-> cuases c to be attention seeking of adults
-> and to treat unfam adults inappropriately
-> often making close personal contact with them
.. makes c very vulnerable

Question 44

aims of rutter etal?

Answer 44

to compare romanian orphans adopted in uk with uk born adoptees
to inv effects of long periods of time in poor qual orphanages

Question 45

procedure of rutter et al?

Answer 45

longitudinal study -> aims to follow c into adulthood
compared 165 romanian orphans adopted by Uk families w Uk born adoptees
RO entered orphanage aged 1-2 weeks
conditions in o very poor -> at time of rescue over half malnourished
58 were adopted b4 6 months old
59 adopted between 6 and 24 motnhs
48 b adopted 2-4yrs “late adoptees”
at 4,6 and 11 followed up using interviews and observations
-.=> using modified version of SS
also used parental reports

Question 46

what were the findings of rutter et al research?

Answer 46

adopted b4 6 months had low lvls of disinhibition + average iq of 102 (normal)
6-24 months -> moderate disinhibited beh average iq 86
late adoptees had makred disinhibition and average iq 77
all grps small + stature + underweight
disinhibition rare in Uk adoptee grp
wehn assessed by age of 4 most RO adopted before 6 months had caught up w Uk adoptee grp (I.E no longer showed disinhibted beh + put on weight + normal iq )

Question 47

concl of rutter et al?

Answer 47

disinhib attachment + cog impairment more liekly in children who exp longer periods in institutions
when follwoed up in 2007 -> found beh persistent in c adopted past age 6 months

Question 48

proc of zeanah the bucharest early intervention project

Answer 48

assessed attach in 95 c 12-31 months
spent most lives in insitutional care
compared to a control grp of 50 c who never lived in Indtiution
attach types measured using SS
-> carers asked about unusual beh incl clingy attention seeking beh at all adults
-> (disinhibited attachment)

Question 49

findings of zeanah ?

Answer 49

74% control grp sec attached in SS
19% of institutional grp securely attached
with 65% being classified w disorgansied attachment
description of disinhibted attach applied to 44% of institutionalised c as opposed to less than 20% of the controls

Question 50

pos of rutter et al? (3)

Answer 50

rutter used range of measurements,e.g semi-structured interviews adm observations
.. makes r rich and detailed -> more data collected
-> also overcomes problem of social desireability from interviews as p will be observed as well
-> making it ahrder to “lie” … r gainmore valid picture of adoptees beh
-> rutters work has real life applications
-> studying RO enhanced understanding effects of institutionalisation .. led to improvements in way c are cared for
-> e,g orphans + c home avoid having large no. of caregivers for each c… allows c to develop chance for normal attach -> avoiding disinh attach
-> rutters study natural exp as did not control IV-> age at whcih adopted
.. more ethical than the bucharest early intervention proj
-> as in the proj c randomy allocated to ins care in fostering

Question 51

weaknesses of rutter et al r? 2

Answer 51

longitudinakl r
… carried out over many yrs .. attrition may be an issue as ppl have option to leave r
-> those who choose to withdraw are often diff
e.g those struggling to care for child as taking part in r may trigger memories of previous events in institution.. making it harder to care for c
-> sample may be unrep .. limits generalisability of findings
-> the romanian orphanages were not typical-> the conditions could be so bad that results cannot be applied to understanding the imapct of better q ins care
-> RO had poor standards of care esp wehn forming rel w c .. limits generalisability .. is a limitation

Question 52

waht are the effects of infant attachment type on childhood rel?
Kerns
Myron wilson adn smith
the minnesota-child study

Answer 52

Kerns found sec attach c tend to go on to have best q c rel w peers
.. c who insec attach types more liekly to have friendshp problems
Myron-wilson adn smith found attach type can be a predictor of bullying.
-> sampled 196 c from london 7-11yrs, had their attach type + bullying involvement assessed using standard questionnaires
-> sec attach unlikely to be involved w bullying
insec resistant c more liekly to be bullies
insec avoidant c more liekly to be victims of bullying
The Minnesota child parent study found continuity betwe early attach and later/emotional or social beh
sec attach in infancy highest rated fro social competence lter during childhoof + more pop+ less isolated
-> expl in terms of IWM bc sec attached inf have higher expectations taht others are frienly and trudsting.. enable easuer rel w others

Question 53

which researcg inv the effect if infant attach type on adult relationships?

Answer 53

Hazan and shaver- the love quiz

Question 54

what were the aims of hazan and shaver love quiz?

Answer 54

seee if there correlation betw infants attach type and future approach to romantic rel

Question 55

proc of hazan and shaver?

Answer 55

consisted of 2 components
- measurement of attachment type - incl adj checklist of childhood rel w parents e.g warm,cold, nurturing, critical etc
- a love exp questionnaire asses indv beliefs about romantic love,e.g if it lasted forever/if it can be found easily
love quiz printed on news paper and readers asked to send in responses
hazan and shaver used first 620 replies from ppl aged 14-82
they classified the respondants according to mary ainsworths inf attach types + looked for corresponding adult love styles
sec- happy experiences , friendly, trusting
->able to accept partners regardless of any faults, rel more enduring
resis- exp love as involving obsession, a desire for reciprocation, emotional highs and lows, jealousy, worried partner may abandon them anytime
avoidant - feared intimacy and jealousy, did not need love to be happy. uncomf to depend on others

Question 56

waht were the findings of hazan and shaver?

Answer 56

found a sig pos correlation betw inf attach types + adult romantic love styles

Question 57

concl of hazan and shaver?

Answer 57

evidence to support concept of IWM
-> iwm has a life long effect
but did not concede that not everyone stayed true to their infant attachment style -> some ppl changed as they got older

Question 58

strengths of hazan and shaver r? 2

Answer 58

mccarths r- studied w whose attachment types recorded during infancy and found avoidant- inf grew up to have most diff in romantic rel, resistant inf- grew up to have poorest rel
sec attach inf- grew up to have happy rel
-> r supporting and gives sim concl to hazan and shaver
hazan and shaver repated the love quiz in 1993 again
-> found strong evidence fro a correlation between infant attach + adult love style
.. more reliable bc done more than once simialr outcome

Question 59

weakenss of hazan ane shaver 3

Answer 59

r relied on retrospective data + self reports
-> p had to rember things from long time ago (during infancy)which could be disorted and unclear .. lowers internal v as may not be accurate

volunteer sampling .. subject to volunteer bias-> sample is less rep .. harder to generalise to whole pop
additionally published in local news paper .. does not rep everyone in world but only the local community

establisehd a correlation .. cause and effect cannot be assumed from their work