Evaluation Points Flashcards
(23 cards)
what are the strengths of caregiver-infant interactions?
- high levels of validity e.g meltzoff and Moore single blind study to remove observer bias/interpretation
- further supporting research e.g. Abravenel and DeYoung found little imitation of moving objects
what are the limitations of caregiver-infant interactions?
- contradicting evidence e.g. koepke et al failed to replicate M&M studies as behaviour wasnt copied
- individual differences e.g. Isabella et al found more synchrony in pairs more strongly attached
what are the strengths of schaffer and Emerson?
- high ecological validity e.g. research done in family homes w/ parents as observers so very reflective of irl
- longitudinal study e.g. same children followed instead of comparing groups so reduced ppt variables
What are the limitations of Schaffer and Emerson?
- lacks generalisabiity e.g. sample consists of 60 babies so unrepresentative
- suffers from social desirability bias e.g mothers may have been influenced by research/lied to make themselves look better
strengths of Harlow’s research
valuable contributions
- preferred towel even if it didn’t feed them & critical period (supports monotropic/refutes learning theory)
limitations of Harlow’s research
CARRIED OUT ON MONKEYS
- used monkeys taken from their natural mothers so limited findings
CO-FOUNDINDING VARIABLES
- towels face resembled a monkey affects internal validity
ETHICAL ISSUES
- taken from birth, kept in isolated cages, can’t be replicated due to maltreatment but can be justified due to important findings
strengths of Lorenzo study
Research Support
- e.g guilton demonstrated that leghorn chicks, exposed to yellow rubber gloves for feeding imprinted on the gloves
Valuable Information Gained
- suggested a critical period for attachment which influenced bowlbys idea in critical period in babies
limitations of Lorenz’s study
Criticisms of imprinting
- permanent consequences for for later mating behaviour, chickens tried mating w/ rubber gloves
Limitations Generalising
- findings focused on birds but the mammalian attachment system is different
strengths of bowlby’s monotropic theory
Animal research to support it
- Lorenz and Harlow found evidence that attachment is an innate behaviour
Evidence to Support Continuity
- Sroufe: longitudinal study for parent-child relationships and found a continuity for early attachment and later emotional/social relationships
limitations of bowlby’s monotropic theory
The idea of the Critical Period
- Rutter found children who were unable to form attachments in the critical period formed them later in life
Alternative explanations
- kagan said temperament affected type of attachment formed, e.g. easy temperament, secure attached
strengths of learning theory
Explanations can offer some understanding of aspects of attachment
- suggests infants form associations between caregiver and pleasure maintaining attachment
- plays key part in maintenance and continuity of behaviours
limitations of this theory
Ignore other factors
- Schaffer and Emerson: attachment depends on who responds best to babies needs, not limited to food
Better alternative
- Bowlby’s theory it’s an evolutionary behaviour enhancing survival and protecting infants - can explain why, not just how we attach
limitation: counter evidence
Counter evidence from animal research
- Harlow’s research showed contact comfort was more important than food in attachment
- challenges theory that attachment is association between caregiver and food
strengths of the strange situation test
High inter-observer reliability
- Ainsworth found 0.94 level of agreement between observers
Predictive validity
- Hazan and Shaver found ppts attachment styles positively correlated to their child attachment style
limitations of the strange situation test
Attachment type classification
- main and Soloman proposed a 4th type labelled disorganised
Lacks internal validity
- main and Weston found children reacted differently depending on which parent they did the test with - so measuring relationship quality
strengths of VL & K’ study
Most studies conducted by indigenous psychologist
- e.g Takahashi was Japanese and Grossman german
- no misunderstanding of language, difficulty communicating instructions or influence of stereotypes
limitations of VL & K’s study
Analyses difference between countries not cultures
- VL & sagi found Tokyo has similar attachment types to Western countries but rural japan has more resistant
Use of the strange situation test for cultures
- based on Western beliefs/norms of child rearing practices (imposed etic)
Similarities due to global culture
- attachment is innate and isn’t modified by the culture one is brought up in
strengths of bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Real world application
- before children were left In hospital for up to months w/o contact with parents, now changed
Research support for long term effects
- bifulco found 25% of women who experienced deprivation developed depression or anxiety
limitation of bowlbys theory
Ignore individual differences
- Barrett found effects of deprivation are worse if they’re insecurely attached
Doesn’t distinguish between deprivation and privation
- Ruyter claimed Bowlby didn’t clarify if a bond was formed and broken, or had never formed in the first place
strengths of institutionalisation
useful applications
- those adopted pre 6mths caught up so led to changes in adoption processes
value of longitudinal studies
- study lasted for 20 years, short term suggest effects are permanent but long term shows effects can be overcome
limitations of institiutionalisation
confounding variables
- orphans lived in terrible conditions so we cannot directly establish c+e to being institutionalised
socially sensitive
- could lead to prejudice towards Romanians as it presents them as neglectful/ in a bad light
strength of early attachment research
lots of research support
- e.g. kerns directly supports Bowlbys theory
limitations of early attachment research
RESEARCH IS CORRELATIONAL
- therefore cause and effect cannot be established
RELIANCES ON RETROSPECTIVE CLASSIFICATIONS
- relies on adults answering questions about their early life and memories may be inaccurate
OVERLY DETERMINISTIC
- doesn’t take into account free will the ability to make choices to change future outcomes
