Attachments Flashcards Preview

Psychology > Attachments > Flashcards

Flashcards in Attachments Deck (85)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

What is an interaction?

A

Babies have frequent and important interactions with their caregiver.

2
Q

What is reciprocity?

A

A description of how two people interact. Mother-infant interaction is reciprocal in that both infant and mother respond to each other’s signals and each elicits a response from the other.

3
Q

What is interactional synchrony?

A

Mother and infant reflect both the actions and emotions of the other and do this in a co-ordinated way.

4
Q

Caregiver-infant interactions evaluation - Hard to know what is happening

A

Observe simple gesture and expression, and assume infants intentions.

5
Q

Caregiver-infant interactions evaluation - Controlled observations

A

Capture fine detail of interactions.

6
Q

Caregiver-infant interactions evaluation - Purpose of synchrony and reciprocity

A

Feldman: just observations, purpose not entirely understood.

7
Q

Parent-infant

A

Traditionally mother-infant, other attachment figures like the father may also be important.

8
Q

The role of the father

A

Grossman et al: attachment to fathers less important but fathers may have a different role - play and stimulation.

9
Q

Fathers as primary carers

A

Field: fathers as primary carers adopt attachment behaviour more typical of mothers

10
Q

Evaluation of attachment figures - inconsistent findings

A

Different research questions overall picture unclear.

11
Q

Caregiver-infant interactions evaluation - children without fathers aren’t different

A

Suggests the father role is not important

12
Q

Caregiver-infant interactions evaluation - fathers not primary attachments

A

May be due to traditional gender roles or biological differences

13
Q

Caregiver-infant interactions evaluation - evaluation extra

A

Socially sensitive research: working mothers

14
Q

The aim of Schaffer and Emerson’s study

A

To investigate the age of attachment formation and who attachments are formed with

15
Q

The method of Schaffer and Emerson’s study

A

Mothers of 60 Glasgow babies reported monthly on separation anxiety

16
Q

The findings of Schaffer and Emerson’s study

A

Most babies showed attachment to a primary caregiver by 32 weeks and developed multiple attachments soon after this

17
Q

Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson - good external validity

A

Observations were in participants’ natural environments

18
Q

Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson - longitudinal design

A

Same participants were observed at each age, eliminating individual differences as a confound

19
Q

Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson - limited sample characteristics

A

All families were from the same area and over 50 years ago, so may lack generalisability

20
Q

Schaffers stages of attachment

A
  1. Asocial stage
  2. Indiscriminate attachments
  3. Specific attachments
  4. Multiple attachments
21
Q

What is the asocial stage

A

Little observable social behaviour

22
Q

What is the indiscriminate attachment

A

More observable attachment behaviour, accept cuddles from any adult

23
Q

What is the specific attachments

A

Stranger anxiety and separation anxiety in regard to one particular adult

24
Q

What is multiple attachments

A

Attach behaviour directed towards more than one adult (secondary attachments)

25
Q

Evaluation of stages of attachment - asocial stage

A

Social behaviour is hard to observe in the first few weeks but this doesn’t mean the baby is ‘asocial’

26
Q

Evaluation of stages of attachment - conflicting evidence

A

Van IJzendoorn et al: research in different contexts has found multiple attachments may appear first

27
Q

Evaluation of stages of attachment - measuring multiple attachments

A

Just because a child protests when an adult leaves does not necessarily mean attachment

28
Q

Evaluation of stages of attachment - evaluation extra

A

Schaffer and Emerson used limited measures of attachment

29
Q

Lorenz’s procedure

A

Goslings saw Lorenz when they hatched

30
Q

Lorenz’s findings

A

Newly hatched chicks attach to the first moving object they see (imprinting)

31
Q

Lorenz sexual imprinting

A

Adult birds try to mate with whatever species or object they imprint on

32
Q

Evaluation of Lorenz - generalisability

A

Birds and mammals have different attachment systems so lorenz’s results may not be relevant to humans

33
Q

Evaluation of Lorenz - some observations questioned

A

Guiton et al: birds imprinting on rubber gloves did later prefer their own species

34
Q

Harlow’s procedure

A

Baby monkeys given cloth or wire ‘mother’ with feeding bottle attached

35
Q

Harlow’s findings

A

Monkeys clung to cloth surrogate rather than wire one, regardless of which dispensed milk

36
Q

Harlow’s maternally deprived monkeys

A

Grew up socially dysfunctional

37
Q

Harlow the critical period

A

After 90 days attachments wouldn’t form

38
Q

Evaluation of Harlow - theoretical value

A

Demonstrated that attachment depends more on contact comfort than feeding

39
Q

Evaluation of Harlow - practical value

A

Howe: informs understanding of risk factors for child abuse

40
Q

Evaluation of Harlow - ethical issues

A

Suffering of the monkeys would be human-like

41
Q

Classics conditioning

A

Caregiver (neutral stimulus) associated with food (unconditioned stimulus)

Caregiver becomes conditioned stimulus

42
Q

Operant conditioning

A

Crying behaviour reinforced positively for infant and negatively for caregiver

43
Q

Attachment as a secondary drive

A

Attachment becomes a secondary drive through association with hunger

44
Q

Evaluation of learning theory - animal studies

A

Lorenz and Harlow showed that feeding is not the key to attachment

45
Q

Evaluation of learning theory - human research

A

Schaffer and Emerson: most primary attachment figures were the mother even when others did most feeding

46
Q

Evaluation of learning theory - ignores other factors

A

Cannot account for the importance of sensitivity and interactional synchrony

47
Q

Bowlby’s explanation - Harlow’s research: monotropy

A

One particular attachment is different in quality and importance than others

48
Q

Bowlby’s explanation - Harlow’s research: social releases and the critical period

A

Innate cute behaviours in the first two years

49
Q

Bowlby’s explanation - Harlow’s research: internal working model

A

Mental representations of the primary attachment relationship are templates for future relationships

50
Q

Evaluation of Bowlby’s explanation of Harlow’s research - mixed evidence for monotropy

A

Some babies form multiple attachments without a primary attachment

Suess et al: other attachments may contribute as much as primary one

51
Q

Evaluation of Bowlby’s explanation of Harlow’s research - support for social releasers

A

Brazleton et al: when social releasers ignored babies were upset

52
Q

Evaluation of Bowlby’s explanation of Harlow’s research - support for internal working model

A

Bailey et al: quality of attachment is passed on trough generations in families

53
Q

Ainsworths strange situation procedure

A

7-stage controlled observation

Assessed proximity seeking, exploration and secure base, stranger and separation anxiety, response to reunion

54
Q

Ainsworths findings

A

Infants showed consistent patterns of attachment behaviour

55
Q

Ainsworths types of attachment

A

Secure: enthusiastic, greeting, generally content.

Avoidant: avoids reunion, generally reduced responses.

Resistant: resists reunion, generally more distressed.

56
Q

Evaluation of ainsworth - support for validity

A

Attachment type predicts later social and personal behaviour e.g bullying

57
Q

Evaluation of ainsworth - good reliability

A

Different observers agree 90%+ of the time on children’s attachment types

58
Q

Evaluation of ainsworth - culture-bound

A

Attachment behaviour may have different meanings in different cultures so the strange situation may be measuring different things

59
Q

Study of cultural variations - van IJzendoorn

A

Compared rates of attachment type in 8 countries

Found more variation within than between countries

60
Q

Study of cultural variations - simonella et al

A

Italian attachment rates have changed, may be due to changing practices

61
Q

Study of cultural variations - Jin et al

A

Korean attachment rates similar to Japan, could be due to similar child-rearing styles

62
Q

Study of cultural variations - conclusions

A

It appears that attachment is innate and universal and secure attachment is the norm

Bieber cultural practices affect rates of attachment types

63
Q

Evaluation of cultural variations - large samples

A

Reduce the impact of anomalous results so improve internal validity

64
Q

Evaluation of cultural variations - samples unrepresentative of culture

A

Countries do not equate to cultures not to culturally special methods of child rearing so can’t make generalisations

65
Q

Evaluation of cultural variations - method of assessment is biased

A

Research using the strange situation imposes a USA test on other cultures

66
Q

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation - separation versus deprivation

A

Physical separation only leads to deprivation when the child loses emotional care

67
Q

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation - critical period

A

The first 30 months are critical and deprivation in that time causes damage

68
Q

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation - effects on development

A

Goldfarb: deprivation causes low IQ

Bowlby: emotional development e.g affectionless psychopathy

69
Q

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation - 44 thieves study (Bowlby)

A

Many more affectionless psychopaths than controls had a prolonged separation

70
Q

Evaluation of maternal deprivation theory - evidence may be poor

A

Orphans have experienced other traumas

Bowlby may have been a biased observer

71
Q

Evaluation of maternal deprivation theory - counter-evidence

A

Lewis: sample of 500, no link between early separation and later criminality

72
Q

Evaluation of maternal deprivation theory - a sensitive period

A

Bowlby exaggerated the importance of the critical period

73
Q

Romanian orphan studies - Rutter’s ERA study

A

165 orphans adopted in Britain

Some of those adopted later show low IQ and disinhibited attachment

74
Q

Romanian orphan studies - Bucharest early intervention project

A

Random allocation to institutional care or fostering

Secure attachment in 19% of institutional group versus 74% of controls

75
Q

Romanian orphan studies - effects of institutionalisation

A

Disinhibited attachment and intellectual restarts room of institutionalisation is prolonged

76
Q

Evaluation of Romanian orphan studies - real life application

A

Both institutional care and adoption practice have been improved using lessons from Romanian orphans

77
Q

Evaluation of Romanian orphan studies - fewer extraneous variables

A

Romanian orphans had fewer negative influences before institutionalisation than e.g war orphans

78
Q

Evaluation of Romanian orphan studies - Romanian orphanages not typical

A

Conditions were so bad that results may not generalise to better institutions

79
Q

Attachment and later relationships - internal working model

A

Bowlby’s idea that the primary attachment relationship proves a template for later relationships

80
Q

Attachment and later relationships - relationships in later childhood

A

Kerns: securely attached children have better friendships

Myron - Wilson and smith: securely attached children less likely to be involved in bullying

81
Q

Attachment and later relationships - relationships with romantic partners

A

McCarthy: securely attached adults have better relationships with friends and partners

Hazan and Shaver: secure responders had better and longer-lasting relationships, avoidant responders had fear of intimacy

82
Q

Attachment and later relationships - parental relationships

A

Bailey et al: mothers’ attachment type matched that of their mothers and their babies

83
Q

Evaluation of attachment and later relationships - evidence is mixed

A

Zimmerman et al: found little relationship between quality of attachment and later attachment

84
Q

Evaluation of attachment and later relationships - low validity

A

Most studies assess infant attachment by retrospective self-report which lacks validity

85
Q

Evaluation of attachment and later relationships - association does not mean causality

A

A third factor like temperament might affect both infant attachment and later relationships