Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
psychology
year 1 attachment flashcards
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Schaffer and Emerson Aim | to assess if there was a pattern of attachment formation common to all infants and identify the distinct stages by which the attachment forms |
| Schaffer and Emerson Method | longitudinal study of 60 babies & mothers working class area Glasgow until 1 year old / every month in own homes 1)infant’s response to separation 2)intensity of any protest 4 point scale 3)protest directed at 4)response to interviewer=stranger anx |
| Schaffer and Emerson Results | 6-8 months = 50% sep anx str anx 1 month after sep anx attached to most sensitive caregiver not one that spent most time with(39% not main c) respond to needs quicker = stronger attachment multiple attachments 18 months =87% at least 2 attachments |
| Schaffer and Emerson Conclusion | -there’s a pattern of attachment formation common to all infants suggesting a biologically controlled process -attachments are more easily made with those who show sensitive responsiveness -attachment develops in stages |
| Schaffer and Emerson Weakness cue: hard to generalise results | -hard to generalise the results -limited sample of Ps (one area & all working class) -can’t assume middle-class/dif areas Ps would act in the same way -follow dif societal & cultural norms -can’t safely generalise the findings to other cultures |
| Schaffer & Emerson Strength cue: high ecological validity & mundane realism | -high ecological validity & mundane realism -a naturalistic longitudinal observation in real life environment -ms usual activities, at home & no artificial tasks that were unlikely to occur in daily life -can generalise results to other settings |
| Schaffer & Emerson Weakness cue: questionable internal validity | -questionable internal validity -not have filled in diaries as events occurred(too busy) -retrospective -completion of the diaries not accurate -manufactured events- couldn’t remember or nothing significant -demand characteristics -no cause &effect |
| Schaffer & Emerson Strength cue: longitudinal design | -longitudinal design controlled for P variables -the same children were observed regularly -good internal validity -no confounding variables |
| Geiger (1996) | fathers’ play interactions=more exciting & pleasurable than mothers’ -mothers=more nurturing & affectionate -LAMB: children preferred interacting with fathers when seeking stimulation -fathers are preferred as playmates -only under certain conditions |
| HRDY (1999) | fathers are less able than mothers to detect low levels of distress in infants LAMB: fathers that became the main care-giver quickly developed sensitivity to children’s needs suggests sensitive responsiveness isn’t a biological response limited to women |
| LUCASSEN et al(2011) | meta-analysis of studies involved observations & the strange situation technique higher levels of sensitivity with greater levels of infant(father attachment security) suggests most secure attachments in children whose fathers = more sensitive to needs |
| THE ROLE OF THE FATHER- Strength 1 | help education sector children w/ secure attachments to their fathers go on to have better relationships w/ their peers less problem behaviours better able to regulate emotions |
| THE ROLE OF THE FATHER- Strength | help understanding for education/social care children who grow up w/out fathers have been seen to perform worse at school, engage in more risk-taking behaviours & have a higher level of aggression |
| THE ROLE OF THE FATHER- Strength | fathers are important for mothers too supportive fathers provide mothers with time away from childcare reducing stress in mothers, improving self-esteem & quality of mother’s relationship w/ children |
| THE ROLE OF THE FATHER- Weakness | when fathers spend more time w/ children, children develop more secure attachments suggests amount of interaction time is important BUT could be that fathers w/ more sensitivity to their children’s needs interact w/ them more |
| Lorenz Imprinting study Aim | to investigate the mechanisms of imprinting where the youngsters follow and form an attachment to the first large, moving object they meet |
| Lorenz Imprinting study Method | split clutch of greylag goose eggs into 2 1. hatched naturally with mother 2. Hatched in incubator with Lorenz recorded gosling’s behaviour marked goslings(natural or incubator) placed under an upturned box : removed the box and recorded behaviour |
| Lorenz Imprinting study Results | naturally hatched follow mother incubator hatched follow L when box removed naturally born to mother, incubator born to Lorenz no bond to natural mother irreversible bond process of imprinting occurred short period after birth4-25hrs=critical period |
| Lorenz Imprinting study Conclusion | -imprinting = form of attachment -exhibited mainly by birds that leave the nest early(nidifugous birds) -close contact is kept with the first large moving object encountered |
| Lorenz Imprinting study Strength cue: supports a biological basis to attachments | -printing is irreversible -suggests that it is under biological control(as learned behaviours could be modified by experience) -shows strong support for the biological explanation to attachments |
| Lorenz Imprinting study Weakness cue: low population validity | used geese as it’s sample so we can’t safely apply these results to humans imprinting may not occur in the same way in humans as Lorenz found with the goslings must have low population validity(can’t generalise to another group of people) |
| Lorenz Imprinting study Strength cue: high in ecological validity | study was conducted in a field(a naturalistic setting) used real goslings results can be generalised to other natural settings -> must be high in ecological validity |
| Lorenz Imprinting study Strength cue: highly influential findings within the field of developmental psychology | as imprinting=irreversible attachment formation is under biological control & attachment formation happens within a specific time frame led to developmental psychologists to develop theories of attachment suggesting point 2 influential in in childcare |
| Harlow Contact Comfort study Aim | to test learning theory by comparing attachment behaviour in baby monkeys given a wire surrogate mother producing milk with those given a soft towelling mother producing no milk |
| Harlow Contact Comfort study Method | 16 baby monkeys, 4 in each condition harsh wire /towelling mother, produced milk/produced no milk amount of time with each mother & feeding time recorded frightened monkeys with loud noises to test for mother preference during times of stress |
| Harlow Contact Comfort study Results | contact with towelling m>wire(even w/ out milk) monkey stretched across to feed on wire, while clinging to towelling m monkeys w/ only wire m had diarrhoea(stress) frightened: clung to towelling monkeys explored more in larger cages w/ towelling m |
| Harlow Contact Comfort study Conclusion | Rhesus monkeys have an innate, unlearned need for contact comfort suggests attachment concerns emotional security > food contact comfort is associated w/ lower levels of stress & a willingness to explore indicates emotional security |
| Harlow Contact Comfort study Weakness cue: breached ethical guidelines | ~monkeys distressed deliberately ~loud noises to test during stress ~monkey’s can’t communicate ~no informed consent ~put Ps in harm w/ out consent, breaching the protection from harm issues & informed consent |
| Harlow Contact Comfort study Strength cue: good applicability | ~highlights need for good emotional care in early life ~invaluable in helping to rescue children ~occurs both in treatment of other species in captivity & in parental neglect of human infants ~shows that Harlow’s research benefited people in society |
| Harlow Contact Comfort study Weakness cue: low population validity | ~evolutionary discontinuity ~monkeys=sample ~can’t say that the cupboard love found in Harlow’s research occurs the same way in humans ~can’t generalise to humans |
| Harlow Contact Comfort study Weakness cue: long-term effects were seen | ~when placed with ordinary monkeys, sat huddled in a corner in a state of persistent fear and depression ~easily bullied ~difficulty mating ~timid ~further breaches of ethical guidelines ~benefits don’t outweigh the costs |
| Sluckin (1996) The Sensitive Period | replicated Lorenz’s study with ducklings -imprinted them all except 1(kept in isolation-) -5 days: attempted to imprint the separated duckling onto himself -Lorenz’s critical period is instead a sensitive period(best time for imprinting to perform) |
| THE LEARNING THEORY: Nurture | • infants learn to become attached to their caregivers • also known as cupboard love theory: attachment depends on food provision • believes we are born Tabula Rosa(blank slate) |
| THE LEARNING THEORY: Experience | ~all behaviour acquired through experience via process of association ~Assumptions: attachment = set of behaviours that have been learnt through the environment / ignores genetics / nurture>nature = develops through infant associating carer with feeding |
| THE LEARNING THEORY: Classical Conditioning | -learning through association of natural response to environmental stimulus with something 1. unconditioned stimulus→unconditioned response 2. unconditioned stimulus+neutral stimulus→unconditioned response 3. conditioned stimulus →conditioned response |
| THE LEARNING THEORY: Operant Conditioning | ~learning through consequences ~linked to drive reduction ~based on 'Law of Effect’ ~pleasurable outcomes=positive reinforcements=strengthen behaviours, negative reinforcements: negative is removed due to a behaviour ~caregiver=source of reinforcement |
| THE LEARNING THEORY: Strength cue: research support | Dollard & Miller(1950) -infants fed approx. 2,000 times by main carer in first year -lots of opportunity for carer to be associated with removal of hunger -supports learning through operant conditioning part -food=reason people develop attachments |
| THE LEARNING THEORY: Weakness cue: contradictory evidence=Harlow’s monkeys | • Harlow’s monkeys • showed how monkey’s preferred contact comfort, choosing the cloth mother over food • shows that attachments are formed due to factors other than food |
| THE LEARNING THEORY: Weakness cue: contradictory evidence=Schaffer & Emerson | • Schaffer & Emmerson(1964) • 39% of infants had a prime attachment with someone other than the main carer(person who feeds them) • shows attachments are formed due to factors other than food |
| THE LEARNING THEORY: Weakness cue: contradictory evidence=Fox(1977) | Fox(1977) -metapelets responsible for the majority of feeding while the infant’s mothers are at work -children still most securely attached to mothers -food can’t be only factor in determining whether attachment is formed between infant & caregiver |
| metapelets | full time carers of infants in Israeli Kibbutzim |
| THE LEARNING THEORY: Weakness cue: evolutionary discontinuity | Pavlov & Skinners -conducted on animals(dogs & rats) -animals don’t have same complex cognitive capacity as humans -careful when suggesting these studies can explain human behaviour -take groundings with caution -can't apply |
| THE LEARNING THEORY: Weakness cue: reductionist | -reductionist -attempt to explain cognitive behaviours such as attachments, with only feeding -ignores cognitive processes & the emotional nature of attachments -over-simplistic |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Innate | ~we have an innate drive to attach present from birth ~this is pre-programmed in our genes ~supports the nature argument |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Adaptive | ~(it allows our genes to continue) ~it provides protection and food so we can survive long enough to reproduce |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Monotropic | ~(a preference for one person, the primary care giver) ~have one primary attachment figure ~usually the mother according to Bowlby, but can be the father |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Social Releasers | ~infants genetically programmed to behave towards PCG to increase survival chancee.g. crying ~adults respond to social releasers through displays of sensitive responsiveness(cute=look after) ~attachment=control system to maintain closeness to the mother |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Secure Base | ~if the attachment between the PCG and an infant is secure, the infant uses the PCG as a base in which to explore their surroundings ~relates to Harlow’s monkey exploration task |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Internal Working Model | ~a template for future relationships based upon the infant’s primary attachment ~main attachment=unique=strongest attachment=forms a model of relationships that the infants expect from others |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Critical Period | ~attachment must occur within a specific time ~useless if delayed beyond 12 months ~more useless if delayed until 2.5 years ~most children’s critical period is up to 1 year- but some is 2.5 ~renamed sensitive period later on |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Continuity Hypothesis | ~the prediction of how your later relationships will turn out because of your internal working model) ~e.g. the prediction that if you have a positive IWM, future relationships will be good and vice versa |
| social releasers | the tendency to display certain innate behaviours which help ensure proximity and contact with the mother or attachment figure |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Strength cue: Lorenz’s research supports the evolutionary explanation of attachments | ~innate imprinting evident ~evolutionary advantage ~staying with ‘attachment figure’ so protected and survives ~support for evolutionary explanation ~however: evolutionary discontinuity / geese(not reflect human behaviours- dif cognitive capacities) |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Strength cue: Hodges’ & Tizard’s research supports the evolutionary explanation of attachments | ~longitudinal study ~65 children in institutional care before 4 mnths old& attachment ~assessed regularly till 16 ~70% can't ‘deeply care about anyone’ ~problems with friends ~no bond in critical period ~IWM altered ~impact relationships |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Strength cue: Tronick’s research supports the evolutionary explanation of attachment | ~studied African tribe live in extended family groups ~children often breastfed by dif women but shared bed w/ own mother ~dif practices to Western ~infants still show 1 primary attachment ~support monotropic +innate |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Weakness cue: Schaffer & Emerson’s research criticises the evolutionary theory of attachment | ~longitudinal study ~60 infants ~Glasgow ~assessed every 4 weeks until 1 and at 18mnths ~31%: 5 or more attachments ~30%: mother= joint attachment figure ~13%= one person ~against monotropy idea(@18 mnths 87%=atleast 2) ~monotropy not correct |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Weakness cue: reductionist theory | ~only consider biological and evolutionary factors, like social releasers ~ignores aspects such as being able to learn to develop an attachment ~therefore is over-simplistic |
| BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: Weakness cue: deterministic | deterministic ~according to the theory we all have the same biological pre-disposition to attach to the most sensitive primary attachment figure(due to it being innate) ~ignore free will or choice in developing attachments + personality factors |
| Ainsworth's Strange Situation Aim | assess how infants aged 9-18 months behave under conditions of mild stress and novelty, while testing stranger anxiety, separation anxiety and the secure base concept |
| Ainsworth's Strange Situation Method | ~106 infants ~8 episodes=3 min:except 1st= 30 sec ~mixture of mother, baby and experimenter ~observe & video ~looked at sep anxiety, str anxiety, reunion behaviours & willingness to explore ~scored behaviour every 15 seconds on intensity scale of 1-7 |
| Ainsworth's Strange Situation Results | ~generally infants were happier to explore when mother was present ~15% type A, 70% type B and 15% type C |
| Ainsworth's Strange Situation Conclusion | most US children securely attached ~role of mother determines quality of attachment ~led to caregiver sensitivity hypothesis ~table |
| caregiver sensitivity hypothesis | a mother’s behaviour towards their infant predicts their attachment type: sensitive mothers=securely-attached babies & insensitive mothers=insecurely-attached babies |
| Ainsworth's Strange Situation Weakness cue: lacks ecological validity | ~controlled observation ~lab ~artificial tasks ~child in a strange & artificial enviro ~predetermined script of leaving & entering ~hard to generalise to other settings ~however: behaviours measured demand situation be in an unfamiliar environment |
| Ainsworth's Strange Situation Weakness cue: unethical | ~child intentionally put under stress through creation of sep and str anxiety ~breaks ethics guideline of protection of Ps ~but: ~only ever left for 3 mins(acceptable length of time) ~episodes were curtailed prematurely if child too distressed |
| Ainsworth's Strange Situation Weakness cue: lacks population validity | ~biased sample ~100 middle class American families ~difficult to generalise the findings to people outside of America, the working class and collectivist cultures ~can’t say it would be the same attachment types elsewhere |
| Ainsworth's Strange Situation Weakness cue: Main and Solomon | ~found a 4th type ~insecure-disorganised → behaviour was a mixture of categories ~original study lacked validity |
| Ainsworth's Strange Situation Weakness cue: not valid for application in some cultures | ~measures sep anxiety, str anxiety and safe base ~behaviours=consistent indicators of attachment type ~imposed etic ~dif cultures value dif types of behaviour(childrearing practices reflect this) ~child’s behaviour=reflection of culture not attachment |
| imposed etic | an observer attempts to generalize observations from one culture to another |
| CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Aim | To compare research using the Strange Situation in different cultures and to assess whether similar patterns of attachment emerged |
| CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Method | ~meta-analysis ~32 strange situation studies ~from 8 countries: UK, US, Sweden, Japan, China, Holland, Germany, Israel ~1990 mother-infant pairs in total ~consulted nearly 2,000 strange situation classifications |
| CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Results | ~Type B was the most common ~differences across cultures ~see table |
| CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Conclusion | ~in every culture most children=secure attachments ~variations, but overall pattern matched Ainsworth ~small cross-cultural differences reflect dif parenting types ~intra-culture differences in attachment types>inter-cultural differences |
| CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Results Table | |
| Ainsworth's Strange Situation Results Table | |
| CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Weakness cue: not globally representative | ~data from less western-orientated cultures is required to establish more global perspective attachment classifications(which they don’t have) ~African, South American & Eastern European socialist countries weren’t represented |
| CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Weakness cue: misleading overall findings | ~biased sample ~disproportionately high number of studies reviewed were conducted in USA(18 out of 32) ~distorted the overall findings ~the apparent ‘consistency’ between cultures might not reflect how attachment types vary between cultures |
| CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Weakness cue: ethnocentric, cross-cultural research judges infant behaviours according to American made categories | ~categories: made from middle-class American infants/not same across cultures/imposed etic ~non-American behav judge against American ~infant exploring room=avoidant:america=independent:germany ~dif culture=dif childrearing ~SSP=culture not attachment |
| CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Strength cue: meta-analysis | ~precise estimate of the effect size ~increases generalisability of individual studies ~removes smaller conflicts in individual studies through a type of counterbalancing ~high reliability ~increased validity of conclusions drawn |
| McMahon, True & Pisani(2001) studied what? | studied infant-mother attachment among the Dogon people of Mali |
| McMahon, True & Pisani(2001) Aim | assess whether infant attachment types are different in a culture that raises infants using natural parenting methods(e.g. breastfeeding n demand, keeping close, responding to distress immediately) |
| McMahon, True & Pisani(2001) Method | ~42 mother-infant pairs ~over 10-12.5 months ~from rural villages ~strange situation testing method used ~results compared to those from 4 North American samples (total of 306 mother-infant pairs) |
| McMahon, True & Pisani(2001) Results table | |
| McMahon, True & Pisani(2001) Conclusion | ~natural child-rearing practices child=more secure & no insecure-avoidant attachments ~Dogon child-rearing practices opposite of western culture child-rearing practices ~Dogan culture: no maternal rejection of attachment bids or lack of physical contact |
| Grossman & Grossman(1991) | ~German infants tended to be classed as insecurely attached ~due to differing parenting practices~German culture encourages independence & distance between adults & children ~indicates there are cross-cultural variations in attachment |
| Kyoung(2005) | ~SSP ~87 Korean & 113 American families ~Korean children didn’t stay close & when reunited, mother would seek to play w/ the infant ~sim proportion of sec attached children in both cultures ~dif child-rearing practices still lead to secure attachments |
| Fox(1977) | ~in Israeli communes, children are cared for by metapelets for the majority of the day ~remained securely attached to their biological parents ~provides support for different child-rearing practices still resulting in securely attached children |
| BOWLBY’S MATERNAL DEPRIVATION HYPOTHESIS basics | ~healthy psychological developments depend on attachments between infants and mothers ~if bonds=broken- separation, deprivation and privation ~If bonds broken=irreversible damage to attachment bond+child’s emotional, social & intellectual development |
| 3 parts of the PDD model | protest, despair, detachment |
| PDD model Protest | when the parent leaves the child: -cries, screams & protests angrily -tries to cling to the parent -struggles to escape from others who try to pick them up |
| PDD model Despair | -after a while the child’s angry protest begins to subside & they appear calmer, although still upset -the child is likely to refuse other’s attempt to comfort them -the child appears withdrawn and uninterested in anything |
| PDD model Detachment | -if separation continues the child may begin to engage with other people again, although are wary and distant -may reject the primary caregiver when they return & show signs of anger |
| Robertson & Robertson STD cue: brief separation from mother affects child’s mental state and psych development | ~John(sec attached)- 9 days in residential nursery whilst m in hospital having baby ~distressed ~all stages of the PDD model ~confused & struggled from mother when return ~negative effects for years ~support MDH |
| Douglas(1975) STD | -found separations of less than a week for children aged 4 and under correlated with behaviour difficulties -supports MDH |
| QUINTON & RUTTER(1976) STD | -found higher levels of behavioural problems in samples of teenagers who had been briefly separated from attachment figures before the age of 5 -supports Bowlby’s prediction of long-term developmental damage |
| BARRET(1997) STD | -individ differences in reaction to short term sep=important -e.g. research has shown that securely attached children & more mature children cope better with separations -suggests only some children will show distress -not generalisable to everyone |
| ROGERS & PRYOR(1998) LTD | • children who have experiences 2 or more divorces have the lowest adjustment rates & most behavioural problems • suggests that the continual broken attachments increase the chances of negative outcomes for children • supports B’s MDH |
| FURSTENBERG & KIERNAN(2001) | -child experiencing divorce score lower than children in first-marriage families on: • social development • emot wellbeing • self-concept • academic performance • educat achievement • phys health ~divorce=negative effects |
| DEMO & ACOCK(1996) LTD | ~children vary in reactions to divorce with some children ~develop better attachments to parents after divorce ~removal of negative enviro of marital conflict & parents being more attentive to children after divorcing ~divorce isn't always negative |
| BOWLBY’S 44 THIEVES STUDY Aim | to investigate the long-term effects of maternal deprivation on people to see whether offenders have suffered deprivation |
| BOWLBY’S 44 THIEVES STUDY Method | -44 adolescents in child protection clinic(as stole) -44 children=‘controls’ at clinic because of emotional problems but no crimes -interviewed parents to see if children experienced separation during the critical period and for how long |
| BOWLBY’S 44 THIEVES STUDY Results | -in first 5 years: • more than half of the thieves • only 2 controls • ...had been separated from their mothers for longer than 6 months(deprivation) -14 of the young thieves showed ‘affectionless psychopathy’ → 0 controls |
| BOWLBY’S 44 THIEVES STUDY Conclusion | -the affectionless psychopaths showed little concern for others and were unable to form relationships -the reason for the antisocial behaviour and emotional problems was due to maternal deprivation → supporting B’s MDH |
| BOWLBY’S 44 THIEVES STUDY Weakness cue: low in internal validity | -clinical interviews of parents(Ps look back and recall) -memories not accurate -retrospective data -events reported in these interviews may be inaccurate can’t say for sure that the deprivation(IV) caused the affectionless psychopath/thieves(DV) |
| BOWLBY’S 44 THIEVES STUDY Weakness cue: only used correlation data | -decreases internal validity of results -relationship between 2 variables(1: deprivation, 2: anti-social & negative emotional state) -extraneous variables may affect behaviours -extraneous variable were not controlled so may have confounded results |
| BOWLBY’S 44 THIEVES STUDY Strength cue: good applicability | -highlight need for good emotional care & attachments in early life -invaluable rescuing children from families where that is missing- e.g. instances of parental neglect of human infants -shows Bowlby’s research benefited people in society + applicable |
| Genie Case study Weakness cue: unethical | -treated as research subject instead of giving her the love & care -researchers had their own agendas that weren’t completely in Genie’s best interests - questions the ethics of the study - put her through more psychological harm than necessary |
| Genie Case study Weakness cue: low in internal validity | -underlying abnormalities when born -father said G was ‘mentally retarded’ but only his word for that -due to privation or born with underlying learning difficulty -no cause & effect relationship between privation & developmental intellec disabilities |
| Czech twins & Genie Weakness cue: hard to generalise | -in depth detail -Genie was one person and the Czech twins 2 - extremely small sample size for psychological research - means that the results of Genie and the Czech twins may be low in generalisability as they are such small, unrepresentative samples |
| GOLDFARB(1943) Method | ~Compared : 15 children(institutions from 6 months till 3 ½ ) group (straight from mothers to foster parents) ~matched on natural mother’s education and occupational status ~yr 1:institutionalised children lived in almost complete social |
| GOLDFARB(1943) Results | ~Age 3: institutionalised children behind fostered children on measures of abstract thinking, social maturity, rule following, sociability ~Age 14 average IQ: institutionalised children(72) still significantly behind foster children(95) |
| HODGES AND TIZARD(1989) Aim | compare the development of children who had been in institutional care at a very young age, under 3 experimental conditions; remain in institution, adopted, restored to biological family |
| HODGES AND TIZARD(1989) Method | -opportunity sample ~65 kids(institutional care from before age of 4 mnths) -24 adopted, 15 restored, 26 remained in institutional care -social & emotional development assessed at age 4,8, & 16 through: obser/inter/teachers/carers/school friends |
| HODGES AND TIZARD(1989) Results table | |
| HODGES AND TIZARD(1989) Conclusion | -being institutionalised at a young age has some long-term effects regardless of whether infants are adopted, restored or remained -kids in the adopted condition seem to adjust slightly better → suggests the effects of privation are partially reversible |
| HODGES AND TIZARD(1989) Weakness cue: naturalistic experiments are low in internal validity -for example: in both studies the infants who were fostered out of the orphanage may have more advanced cognitive/social skills | why they were chosen by families & fostered -children left in the orphanages may have had deficits in these areas -^example of an extraneous variable -means that we can’t determine a cause & effect relationship |
| HODGES AND TIZARD(1989) Strength cue: naturalistic experiments are high in ecological validity -for example: both Goldfarb and Hodges & Tizard conducted their research in real life institutionalised settings & families | -no control over the IV as they all occurred naturally -means we can generalise the results to other settings(specifically real life) -we have a more informed view on how privation can affect development |
| HODGES AND TIZARD(1989) Weakness cue: naturalistic observations are low in reliability -cannot repeat the experiment to ensure our results are the same and therefore the study is low in reliability | -example: conditions of the infants being adopted away, left in the institution or returned to their biological family will never be the same again -very difficult to repeat the experiment exactly as there are no standardised procedure |
| HODGES AND TIZARD(1989) Weakness cue: onflicting further research by Hodges and Tizard -studied children placed into institutionalised care in the first 4 months of life | -children=private(no attachments with mothers + high staff turnover +institutional policy of not attachments) -some remained, adopted or returned to bio fam -a children=strong relationships with a fam -children still form meaningful relationships |
| RUTTER et al(1998) Aim | assess if love and care could overcome the effects of privation |
| RUTTER et al(1998) Method | -Romanian orphans in orphanages @1-2 weeks old w/ min adult contact -longitudinal, naturalistic study -phys & cog functioning at 4,6 & 11, 32 • 58 a before 6 mnths old • 59 a between the ages of 6-24 mnths old • 48 a late after 2 years old |
| RUTTER et al(1998) Findings | -those adopted by British families before 6 months old showed ‘normal’ emotional development compared with UK children at the same age -many adopted after 6 months old showed disinhibited attachments and had problems with peers |
| RUTTER et al(1998) Conclusion | -suggests long-term consequences may be less severe than was thought if children have the opportunity to form attachments -when children don’t form attachments the consequences are likely to be severe |
| examples of disinhibited behaviours | attention seeking behaviour, lack of fear of strangers, inappropriate physical contact, lack of checking back to the parent in stressful situations |
| RUTTER et al(1998) Weakness cue: low in internal validity #-for example: extraneous variables such as personality/IQ/cognitive functioning before the experiment were not taken into account | -means we cannot determine a cause and effect relationship by stating that the IV(condition they were in) did affect the DV(development of the children) and thus the research is low in internal validity |
| RUTTER et al(1998) Strength cue:high in ecological validity -for example: Rutter et al used the horrific real life conditions of Romanian poverty in the 1990s to investigate the effects of these institutionalised orphans | -no control over the IV as they all occurred and were fixed naturally -means we can generalise the results to other settings(specifically real life settings) -we have a more informed view on how privation can affect development |
| RUTTER et al(1998) Strength cue:supporting research -Morison & Elwood(2005) | ~sim results w/ Romanian orphans being adopted by group of Canadian adoptive parents ~children adopted earliest recovered best in terms of cognitive functioning -suggests Rutter’ findings are somewhat reliable -can say that the results are consistent |
| RUTTER et al(2001) -follow up study ~look at attachment problems, hyperactivity & cognitive impairment in children aged 4 in long periods of institutional care | -support for LT effects of institutionalisation and privation -support B’s MDH(children suffer from social, emotional & cognitive challenges if experience privation) |
| RUTTER et al(2007) -follow up study with children aged 11 -showed normal levels of functioning but around 50% of the children who showed disinhibited attachments at age 6 were still doing so | -20%=normal functioning ~emot problems & behav difficulties=negative effects to certain children -Morison & Elwood=sim results w/ group of Romanian orphans adopted by Canadian parents, research support to Rutter’s, high in reliability |
| O’CONNOR et al(1999): cue: reported that the most long-term impact were difficulties making attachments | -orphans displayed ‘indiscriminate friendliness’ (interact w/ strangers in same way as did with PCG) -effects positively correlated w/ length of time children institutionalised -support Rutter’s conclusion about severity of LT issues in the institution |
| IWM | your man attachment forms a template of relationships that the infants will expect from others |
| Continuity | the prediction that if the IWM is positive ten your relationships will be positive and vice versa |
| YOUNGBLADE & BELSKY(1992) | ~3-5 year old securely attached children were more: • Curious • Competent • Empathetic • Self-confident ~got along better with other children -> more likely to form close friends |
| WESTERMARCK(1891) | ~children who form close relationships in the 1st 6 years of life don’t generally go on to form adult sexual relationships with each other ~suggests early attachments do affect childhood & adult’s relationships |
| MCCARTHY(1999) | ~assess quality of adult relationships of 40 women aged 25-44 w/ childhood insecure attach ~insecure avoidant attach=less successful adult romantic relationships ~insecure resistant attach=problems forming non-romantic adult friendships ~support IWM |
| BELSK(1999) | ~report women with childhood secure attachment experienced less conflict with husbands with household division of labour ~more likely to be able to resolve conflict in mutually focused ways ~more committed to relationships ~support Hazan & Shaver |
| THE LOVE QUIZ- HAZAN & SHAVER(1987) Aim | to see if there is a correlation between the infant’s attachment type and their future approach to romantic relationships |
| THE LOVE QUIZ- HAZAN & SHAVER(1987) Method | 1)attachment type-adjective checklist of child & parent relationship 2)love experience questionnaire- belief about love(lasted forever, found easily, trust) ~in local newspapers (Rocky Mountain News) ~first 620 ~ages 14 to 82 ~Ainsworth category |
| THE LOVE QUIZ- HAZAN & SHAVER(1987) Results | ~high correlation ~securely attached believed in lasting love ~56% were securely attached ~25% were insecure-avoidant ~19% were insecure-resistant ~secure: good relationships ~avoidant: jealousy, fear |
| THE LOVE QUIZ- HAZAN & SHAVER(1987) Conclusion | ~evidence to support the IWM having a lifelong effect ~not everyone stayed true to their infant attachment style → change as they grow older → not fixed IWM ~not biological as can change/be learned |
| THE LOVE QUIZ- HAZAN & SHAVER(1987) Weakness cue: low in internal validity ~relying on Ps to look back and recall attachment from their memory | ~retrospective data ~memories may not be accurate → memories become distorted over time away ~inaccurate attachments ~IV(infant attachment styles) may not cause the DV(adult romantic styles) |
| THE LOVE QUIZ- HAZAN & SHAVER(1987) Weakness cue: hard to generalise ~self-selecting sample | ~volunteer sample collected in a newspaper advert ~Ps have specific characteristics ~e.g. time available, confidence ~unrepresentative |
| THE LOVE QUIZ- HAZAN & SHAVER(1987) Strength cue: supporting evidence ~Keelan, Dion, Dion | ~4-mnth study of heterosexual relationships ~Canadian undergraduates ~secure at: more satisfaction, more trust & greater commitments to relationships ~supports the IWM(the secure template created in infancy creates template for future relationships) |
| THE LOVE QUIZ- HAZAN & SHAVER(1987) SECURE characteristics | • happy, friendly and trusting love experiences • able to accept partner regardless of faults • enduring • happy depending and being depended on • happy to be close |
| THE LOVE QUIZ- HAZAN & SHAVER(1987) ANXIOUS-RESISTANT characteristics | • love=obsession • desire for reciprocation • emotional highs and lows • extreme sexual attraction & jealousy • worries of abandonment |
| THE LOVE QUIZ- HAZAN & SHAVER(1987) ANXIOUS -AVOIDANT characteristics | • feared intimacy • emotional highs and lows • jealousy • did not need love to be happy • uncomfortable being close to others/depending on others |
Created by:
jessharris
Popular Psychology sets