GoConqr hat ein neues Design! Sag uns, wie es dir gefällt.

Kostenlos registrieren

Karteikarten

Attachment

Jemima Glazin Psychology A level Englisch 164 Karten

Attachment

Karten in diesem Stapel (164)

  1. 1Attachment?strong 2-way emotional and reciprocal bond between 2 people
    will lead to separation anxiety
  2. 2Name 2 caregiver-infant interactions-reciprocity
    -interactional synchrony
  3. 3Reciprocity?infant and caregiver respond to each others signals to elicit responses from each other
    -verbal or facial
    -either can initiate
    -take turns creating responses
  4. 4Study into Reciprocity?TRONICK
    (turn away)
  5. 5TRONICK: Did-asked mothers to initially have a 'normal' conversation with their child
    -then asked to turn away and turn back around with a still face
    -infants reactions recorded
  6. 6TRONICK: Found-infants used smiling and pointing to try and produce a response from mothers
    -became increasingly distressed when did not respond
  7. 7TRONICK: Showsinfants expect their actions to be reciprocated
  8. 8Interactional Synchrony?caregiver and infant's interactions mirror each other -> actions are simultaneous and usually has a rhythm
  9. 9Who studied interactional synchronyBRAZELTON -> Frozen Face
  10. 10BRAZELTON: Did-mothers interactions videoed with infants
    -sat face to face
    -mothers asked to make different facial expressions before making a 'frozen face'
    -infants reactions were noted
  11. 11BRAZELTON: Found-imitated each others movements
    -took turns initiating new movement
    -when ignored infant's signals = became concerned
    -some curled up motionless
  12. 12BRAZELTON: Shows-demonstrates how interactional synchrony works to maintain and strengthen attachment bond
  13. 13Evaluation: hard to know what is happening when observing infants-many studies have shown same patterns of behaviour BUT how do we know these aren't just movements
    -difficult to be sure what is happening from infant's perspective *is imitation conscious?
    - cannot be certain interaction have a special meaning
  14. 14Evaluation: highly controlled procedure-interactions videoed -> fine details of behaviour can be analysed later
    -also infants don't know being observed so behaviour does not change in response to observation
    -good validity
  15. 15Evaluation: research does not show us purpose of synchrony and reciprocity-synchrony only describes behaviour that happens at the same time
    -can be reliably observed but not useful as does not tell us their purpose
    -BUT evidence is helpful in development of attachment, stress responses, empathy, language + moral development
  16. 16Evaluation: mother-infant interactions = socially sensitive-suggests children could be disadvantaged by particular parenting techniques
    -*mothers who return to work after child is born restrict opportunities for synchrony
    -suggests mothers should not return to work so soon -> could interfere with equal rights
  17. 17Evaluation: interactional synchrony = beneficial to society-10 min Parent-Child Interaction Therapy improved synchrony in 20 low-income mothers and nursery infants compared to control
    -suggests research could be used to improve mother-infant attachments in at risk groups
  18. 18SCHAFFER + EMERSON: Role of the Father-although majority attached to mother 1st
    -BUT in 27% of cases father was joint first attachment
    -found 75% of babies had attachment with father by 18 months -> indicated by separation anxiety
  19. 19GROSSMAN: Role of the Father-father's interactions are different
    -quality of attachment less important for attachment type of teens that quality with mother BUT the quality of play was
    -suggests fathers have different role -> less nurture and more play stimulation
  20. 20RUTTER: Role of the Father-model of multiple attachments
    -all attachments are of equal importance
    -they all join together to form working internal model
    -attachment to father of equal importance to attachment to mother
  21. 21Fathers can be Primary Caregivers-filmed 4-month-old babies
    -primary caregiver fathers spent more time smiling, imitating and holding than secondary caregivers
    -suggests when father primary caregiver they adopt behaviours more typical of mothers
  22. 22Evaluation: children with same-sex or single parents-they do not develop differently than children with heterosexual married parents
    -suggests role of father is not important
  23. 23Evaluation: research fails to provide a clear answer-traditional gender roles =women expected to be more nurturing than men => fathers feel don't feel they should act in a nurturing way
    -could be higher oestrogen in females creates high levels of nurturing => biologically predisposed to primary caregiving
  24. 24Evaluation: Social Bias prevents objective observations-preconceptions about fathers parenting styles from stereotypes
    -fathers = more playful => unconscious observer bias where 'see' what expect rather than reality
    -conclusions hard to dis-tangle from social biases
  25. 25Evaluation: Economic Implications-mothers feel pressured to stay at home as research suggests are vital for healthy development
    -may not be best economic solution for all families
    -research may be of comfort to mothers who feel have to makae hard choices about returning to work
  26. 26Who identified the stages of attachment?SHAFFER + EMERSON
  27. 27What are the 4 stages of attachment?- Pre-Attachment/Asocial Stage
    -Indiscriminate Attachment Phase
    -Specific Attachment Phase
    -Multiple Attachments
  28. 28Pre-Attachment/Asocial Phase-1st few weeks
    -cannot distinguish between humans + objects
    -no apparent recognition of individuals
  29. 29Indiscriminate Phase-2 to 7 months
    -general sociability towards people + can distinguish from objects
    -prefer familiar adults
    -do not show stranger/separation anxiety
  30. 30Specific Attachment Phase-7 months
    -start to show stranger/separation anxiety
    -strong attachment to primary attachment figure (most sensitive to infants needs)
  31. 31Multiple Attachments-by 1 yr
    -form secondary attachments to other major caregivers
  32. 32SHAFFER + EMERSON: Ps-60 Scottish babies
    -majority = working-class
    -between 5 and 23 weeks old
  33. 33SHAFFER + EMERSON: Did-infants + mothers were visited every month for a yr and again at 18 months
    -measured separation anxiety -> asked mothers behaviour in everyday separation
    -measure stranger anxiety through observing responses to strangers
  34. 34SCHAFFER + EMERSON: Found-25 - 32 weeks = 50% showed separation anxiety from primary caregiver (usually the mother)
    -attachment formed with caregiver most sensitive to infant's signals and not who spent the most time with
  35. 35Evaluation: has high external validity-most observations made by parents in normal environment doing everyday activities
    -behaviour unlike to be effected by observers and behaved naturally
  36. 36Evaluation: Longitudinal Study-same children were followed up and observed regularly
    -better internal validity as do not have confounding variable of individual differences in Ps
    -BUT more time consuming
  37. 37Evaluation: problem with how multiple attachments is assessed-just because get distressed when person leaves the room does not show 'true' attachment figure
    -BOWLBY stated may be distressed when playmates leave the room
    -does not distinguish between behaviour shown towards playmates and secondary attachment figures
  38. 38Evaluation: problem with studying asocial stage-young babies have poor coordination + fairly immobile
    -difficult to make judgments based on observed behaviour
    -may be the babies quite social but cannot show this though movements
  39. 39Evaluation: Conflicting Evidence for Multiple Attachments-BOWLBY states must form primary attachment before can form multiple attachments
    -BUT in collectivist cultures multiple attachments are the norm
    -families work jointly together to raise children
  40. 40Imprinting?born readiness to develop bond
    must happen in a specific time period
  41. 41who studying attachment in geese?LORENZ
  42. 42LORENZ: Did-12 eggs split in half
    -some incubated and LORENZ was 1st ting they saw when hatched
    -others hatched naturally with mother
    -marked so could tell the difference
    -put under upturned box + released
    -monitored behaviour
  43. 43LORENZ: Found-naturally hatched followed mother
    -incubated followed LORENZ
    -happened between 4 and 25 hrs after birth
  44. 44LORENZ: Showsattachment is innate and has a critical period
  45. 45Evaluation LORENZ: geese are precocial animals-independent from birth unlike a human baby
    -important for geese to make attachment instantly so do not wander off into a dangerous situation *walking off a cliff
    -cannot generalise to human babies
  46. 46Evaluation LORENZ: Nature VS Nurture-support nature side of the debate
    -attachment is not a learned response but is innately programmed in order to assist survival
  47. 47Who investigated the importance of contact comfort and what animals did they test on?HARLOW
    monkeys
  48. 48HARLOW: Did-baby monkeys raised in isolation with 2 mother
    -one wire mother with food
    -one cloth mother without food
  49. 49HARLOW: Found-23/24hrs spent with cloth mother
    -used cloth mother as a safebase
    -monkeys who had grown up in isolation rejected + even abused their young -> maternal deprivation
  50. 50HARLOW: Shows-contact comfort is more important than food
    -without early attachment figure = no template for ralationships
  51. 51Evaluation HARLOW: ethical issues-monkeys are intelligent social animals who live in groups
    -isolation = particularly upsetting
    -caused LT harm as could not live normal lives as could not form social relationships -> euthanised
  52. 52Evaluation HARLOW: highly controlled lab experiment-able to see specific effects of the IV
    -all monkeys had same experiences except from mother provided
    *same frightening toys put into cages
    -can be replicated = reliable
  53. 53Generalised Pros of Animal Studies-fewer ethical contracts (can deprive attachment)
    -shorter life span -> can see LT effects
    -no demand characteristics
  54. 54Generalised Cons of Animal Studies-cannot generalise to humans -> humans more complex and high level of processing
    -have to guess why show behaviour -> cannot communicate
  55. 55Who came up with the Monotropy Theory of Attachment?Bowlby
  56. 56Evolutionary Theory + How is a Survival Advantage-attachment = innate -> evolutionary advantage
    -provides safe base for exploration -> important for cognitive development
    -stranger/separation anxiety encourages proximity -> more likely to survive
  57. 57Monotropy?infants have an innate instinct to form one special attachment to one primary caregiver
    -more important than other attachments
    -hierarchy of attachments
    -usually biological mother
  58. 58Law of Continuity?more consistent care = higher quality of attachment
  59. 59Law of Accumulated Separation?-effects of separation add up
    -more time separated = lower quality of attachment
  60. 60Critical Period?-2yrs -> child more sensitive to forming attachment
    -if infant does not form an attachment in this time period = developmental problems
  61. 61Internal Working Model?-mental template for future relationships, determined by attachment to primary caregiver
    -also effects ability to parent themselves = continuity hypothesis
  62. 62Example of Internal Working Model*if had loving attachment expect others to be loving and bring love into the relationship themselves
  63. 63Social Releasers?-innate 'cute' behaviours
    -used to make adults love and look after them
    *smiling
  64. 64Evaluation: SHAFFER + EMERSON-found most infants made multiple attachments by 18 months -> contradicts idea that they form one special attachment
  65. 65Evaluation: LORENZ-imprinting = innate attachment to survive and had a critical period of 4 - 25 hrs after birth
  66. 66Evaluation: HARLOW-isolated monkeys have difficulty with mating and abused/rejected their young -> supports working internal model
  67. 67TRONICK ET AL (Tribes): Did-studied Efe forages tribe
    -found although had multiple feeders, still had primary attachment to their mothers who they slept with at night
    -supports monotropy
  68. 68Evaluation TRONICK ET AL (Tribes): naturalistic observation-gain info on real behaviour as take place in infants natural environment
    - observed in tribe setting so witness real behaviour as it really was rather than in an artificial setting -> felt pressured to view behaviours differently
    -good ecological validity
  69. 69Evaluation TRONICK ET AL (Tribes): Supports Nature-innate instinct in order to aid survival
    -biologically determined
    -not something you are taught to do
  70. 70What does the Learning Theory of Attachment state an Attachment is?-is a learnt behaviour
    -key stimulus = food ('cupboard love')
  71. 71How is attachment learnt through Classical Conditioning?-learn to associate food-giver with pleasurable outcomeHow is attachment learnt through Classical Conditioning?
  72. 72How is attachment learnt through operant conditioning?-learn to repeat behaviour through consequences
    -Positively reinforce when receive positive consequences for behaviour -> cry = caregiver responds
    -negatively reinforces when unpleasant consequence has been avoided -> when provide comfort = crying stops
  73. 73Evaluation: HARLOW- spent 23/24 hrs with cloth mother without food compared to wire mother with food
    -shows contact comfort more important than food
  74. 74Evaluation: SHAFFER + EMERSON-babies formed multiple attachments, most of which did not feed the infant
    -other = mother primary attachment figure even though she did not feed them
  75. 75Evaluation: TRONICK ET AL (Tribes)-fed by multiple caregivers but still formed primary attachment to mother
  76. 76Evaluation: BOWLBYattachment is not a learnt behaviour but an innate behaviour which increases survival chances
    -produce behaviour without stimuli
  77. 77Evaluation: new explanation of social learning theory-suggest parents teach child love through modelling attachment behaviours
    -also, reward with approval when display own attachment behaviours
    -fits with research on interactional synchrony and reciprocity
  78. 78Who Investigated Types of Attachments?AINSWORTH'S STRANGE SITUATION
  79. 79AINSWORTH: What type of study was it?a controlled observation
  80. 80AINSWORTH: Ps-100 middle class US infants
  81. 81AINSWORTH: Did-used grid pattern to make sure room set up the same way
    -noted willingness to explore, separation anxiety and reunion behaviour
  82. 82AINSWORTH: Stages-mother, baby, experimenter
    -mother, baby
    -mother, baby, stranger
    -stranger, baby
    -mother, baby
    -baby
    -stranger, baby
    -mother, baby
  83. 83AINSWORTH: Found -> TYPE A-Insecure-Avoidant = 22%
    -did not use mother as a safe base
    -no stranger/separation anxiety
    -reunion = little interest in mother
    -mothers were not sensitive to child's signals
  84. 84AINSWORTH: Found -> TYPE B-securely attached = 66%
    -used mother as a safe base
    -showed stranger/separation anxiety
    -easily comforted by mother
    -mother sensitive to child's signals
  85. 85AINSWORTH: Found -> TYPE C-Insecure-Resistant = 12%
    -clingy to mother
    -extreme separation/stranger anxiety
    -difficult to soothe
    -mother sometimes sensitive to child's signals
  86. 86AINSWORTH: Shows-most common attachment = secure
    -association between mothers actions and attachment type suggests mother's behaviour determines the attachment type
  87. 87Evaluation: MAIN + SOLOMAN-discovered Type D -> Disorganised
    -children may have been wrongly classified
    -proportions of children in each category incorrect
    -lacks validity -> may not be a useful method of identifying attachment types
  88. 88Evaluation: behaviour of mothers could be affected by deman characteristics-knew they were being observed
    -may have been more attentive to child than would usually be
    -more classed as securely attached
    -lack external validity as secure attachment may not be as common as results suggest
  89. 89Evaluation: Only measures Attachment Type with One Person-child may have multiple attachments to father + other caregivers
    -child may have insecure attachment to mother, but a secure attachment to father
    -could not say child was 'insecure type' as would not be true
  90. 90Evaluation: Nuture-attachment type dependent on behaviour of the mother
    -BUT has been challenged by Temperament Hypothesis -> child's innate personality
    -may mean more difficult for mother to cope with so affects behaviour towards the child -> affects attachment type
  91. 91Evaluation: Culture Bound- test might not mean same things in countries outside western Europe + the USA
    -cultural differences mean child responds + caregivers behave differently
    *Japan = insecure-resistant BUT because rarely separated from mothers
  92. 92Who investigated cultural variations in attachment types?VAN IJZENDOORN + KROONENBERG
  93. 93VAN IJZENDOORN + KROONENBERG:: Did-meta-analysis of 32 studies using the strange situation
    -reanalysed data from previous studies = secondary data
  94. 94VAN IJZENDOORN + KROONENBERG: What was the most common attachment type across all cultures-type b securely attached
  95. 95VAN IJZENDOORN + KROONENBERG: What did they find about variation?Variation WITHIN cultures was 150% more than variation BETWEEN cultures
  96. 96VAN IJZENDOORN + KROONENBERG: What did they find in Japan?highest rate of insecure-resistant 27% and low levels of insecure-avoidant 5% -> babies rarely separated and taught to be polite
  97. 97VAN IJZENDOORN + KROONENBERG: what did they find in West Germany?-35% avoidant -> independence highly valued + encouraged
  98. 98VAN IJZENDOORN + KROONENBERG: Shows-false to think different cultures will have same proportions of each attachment
    -single western culture = oversimplification
    -idea of cross-cultural comparisons lacks validity
  99. 99Evaluation VAN IJZENDOORN + KROONENBERG: meta-analysis-different experiments use slightly different procedures -> not standardised => different results
    -15/32 studies were from the USA -> not valid to compare results of one study with only a few children to a country with a large number of studies
  100. 100Evaluation VAN IJZENDOORN + KROONENBERG: Supports both nature and Nurture-all countries had secure attachment as most common -> universal preference for sensitive response to care-giving as it aid survival
    -different countries had different levels of avoidant + resistant attachments -> attachment type can be influenced by parenting norms
  101. 101Evaluation VAN IJZENDOORN + KROONENBERG: Temperament may be a confounding variable-assumes stranger/separation anxiety indicates the quality of attachment
    -temperament (genetic personality) may be a more important influence on the behaviour
    -strange situation in measuring genetic differences rather than attachment types -> lacks internal validity
  102. 102Evaluation VAN IJZENDOORN + KROONENBERG: Alternative Explanation for Secure Attachment being the most common-argued secure is most common as aids survival
    -BUT may reflect the effects of mass media
    -books + TV broadcast around the world = create same parenting norms => similarities in child-rearing and attachment more common
  103. 103Evaluation VAN IJZENDOORN + KROONENBERG: lacks temporal validity-cultures have changes since 1988
    *West Germany is now Germany
    -may be more or less variation in attachment type between cultures today
    -cannot generalise results to today's world
  104. 104Who came up with the theory of Maternal Deprivation?BOWLBY
  105. 105Deprivation?separation/loss of the mother or a failure to form an attachment
  106. 106Critical Period-if attachment is disrupted or not formed in 2.5 yr sensitive period => irreversible, long-term developmental problems
    -risk continues to the age of 5
  107. 107Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis?persistent disruption of primary attachment = long term cognitive, social and emotional difficulties for the infant
  108. 108Examples of developmental problems-IQ lower
    -Affectionless Psychopathy
    -Higher levels of aggression
    -delinquency
    -deppression
  109. 109Affectionless Psychopathy?-inability to show affection or concern for others
    -act on impulse
  110. 110Study into Maternal Deprivation?BOWLBY'S 44 Juvenile Theives
  111. 111BOWLBY: Ps?-44 delinquent teenagers accused of stealing
  112. 112BOWLBY: Did-families of thieves interviewed to establish if separated from mothers during infancy
  113. 113BOWLBY: Found (affectionless psychopaths)-14/44 were affectionless psychopaths
    -12 of these experience maternal deprivation in 1st 2 yrs of their lives
  114. 114BOWLBY: Found (control group)-only 2 from control group had experienced maternal deprivation
  115. 115BOWLBY: Shows-supports maternal deprivation
    -correlation between maternal deprivation and emotional maladjustment
    -sever maternal deprivation = affectionless psychopathy
    -less sever = anti-social behaviour
  116. 116Evaluation: Study is correlational-cannot show that deprivation causes anti-social behaviour and leads to affectionless psychopathy, only a link
    -may be other, hidden variables caused it
    *maternal illness = separation + stranger anxiety => emotional difficulties
  117. 117Evaluation: Data used = retrospective-asking families about experience from many years ago
    -memory is fluid = inaccurate
    -separations may have been forgotten in individuals in control group
    -results inaccurate + maybe no link between maternal deprivation + anti-social behaviour
  118. 118Evaluation: Bowlby carried out interviews and diagnosis-conflict of interest = too subjective
    -unconsciously identified children he knew had experienced maternal deprivation as affectionless psychopaths because was the theory he was testing
    -lowers validity of finding as another psychologist may not have the same results
  119. 119Evaluation: Practical Application (socially sensitive research)-implications for child care
    -more should be done so that mothers can spend more time with their children early on to prevent developmental damage
    *child benefit paid directly to mother to help mothers stay at home
    *maternity leave
  120. 120Evaluation: LEWIS-replicated study on 500 children
    -found maternal deprivation did not predict criminal behaviour
    -must be other factors involves *trauma in early childhood (*child abuse)
  121. 121Who investigated the effects of Institutionalisation on orphans?RUTTER
  122. 122Privation?not forming attachment at all
  123. 123Institutionalisation?living in an institution for long periods of time
    *hospital
    *orphanage
  124. 124RUTTER: Aimstudy the effect of privation in institutionalisation on children from Romanian Oraphanages
  125. 125RUTTER: Ps?- 165 orphans adopted before 3.5 yrs old
    -experienced sever physical and emotional neglect in the orphanges
  126. 126RUTTER: did-followed the orphans -> longitudinal study
    -weighed, head circumference was measured and developmental milestones recorded
    -development assessed
  127. 127RUTTER: Did: When was development assessed in the children?At ages 4, 6, 11 and 15
  128. 128RUTTER: Did: Control?52 British adoptees
  129. 129RUTTER: Found when arrived in the UK-half showed mental retardation
  130. 130RUTTER: Found: at 11-recovery rates related to age that they were adopted
    -before 6 months = IQ of 102
    -after 6 months = IQ of 86
  131. 131RUTTER: Found: difficulties if adopted after 6 months?-disinhibited attachments
    -clinginess, attention-seeking and indiscriminate affection
  132. 132RUTTER: Found: compared to control-at age of 4 had caught up with control in physical and developmental measures
  133. 133RUTTER: Found: biological explanation-problems result of early attachment experiences which affect the development of neural pathways
  134. 134RUTTER: Shows-supports sensitive period of attachment
    -Long-term effects of privation may not be as sever if adopted before 6 months
  135. 135Evaluation RUTTER: socially sensitive research-huge impact on social policy
    -changed policy to encourage children to be adopted before 6 months old
    -therefore have opportunity to form an attachment
    -reduces sever effect of privation in adoptees
  136. 136Evaluation RUTTER: Nature and Nurture-early experiences of sensitive responsiveness from mother + lack of early attachment = develop different neural pathways => specific behaviour patterns as an adult
    - lead to social and emotional issues at a later age
  137. 137Evaluation RUTTER: issues with generalising-conditions of orphanages so bad that results may not be applied to other institutions
    -particularly poor standards of care e.s.p. when forming attachments with children
    -situational variables => lack external validity
  138. 138Evaluation RUTTER: Children were not randomly assigned-those adopted may have been more sociable ones
    -methodologically better to randomly assign children as removes the confounding variable
    -Later adopted did not develop as well due to being less socialable
  139. 139Evaluation RUTTER: Long-term experiences not yet clear-too soon to say for certain is suffered short-term or long-term effects
    -children who currently lag behind may 'catch-up' during adulthood
    -OR children who appear to have no issues may develop emotional problems in adulthood
  140. 140Who carried out the Early Intervention ProjectZEANAH ET AL
  141. 141ZEANAH ET AL: Ps95 children aged between 12-31 months who had lived in a institution
  142. 142ZEANAH ET AL: Control?-50 children who had never lived in an instituition
  143. 143ZEANAH ET AL: Did-assessed attachment types using the strange situation
    -carers interviewed to see if showed signs of disinhibited attachment
  144. 144ZEANAH ET AL: Found: Secure attachments-control = 74 %
    -Institutionalised = 19%
  145. 145ZEANAH ET AL: Found: Disinhibited Attachments-control = less than 20%
    -institutionalised = 44%
  146. 146ZEANAH ET AL: ShowsThat disinhibited attachments more common and secure less common in children who have been institutionalised
  147. 147Evaluation ZEANAH ET AL: random allocation-children were randomly allocated to institutional care group and foster group
    -removes confounding variable of participant variables
  148. 148Who investigated the effect of attachment type on relationships with other children?MYRON-WILSON + SMITH
  149. 149MYRON-WILSON + SMITH: Did-assessed attachment type and bullying in London
    -aged between 7 and 11
  150. 150MYRON-WILSON + SMITH: Found-insecure-avoidant most likely to be victims
    -insecure-resistant most likely to be bullies
  151. 151Who investigated the effect of attachment type on future romantic relationships?HAZAN + SHAFFER
    Love Quiz
  152. 152HAZAN + SHAFFER: Did-analysed 620 replies to a love quiz in a local newspaper
  153. 153HAZAN + SHAFFER: What did they asses?-current, most important relationship
    -general love experiences
    -attachment type
  154. 154HAZAN + SHAFFER: Found: Secure attachments-56%
    -had longer, more stable relationships
  155. 155HAZAN + SHAFFER: Found: Insecure-Avoidant-25%
    -did not believe needed love to be happy
  156. 156HAZAN + SHAFFER: Found: Insecure-resistant-19%
    -shorter, more volitile relationships
  157. 157HAZAN + SHAFFER: Shows-attachment type effects how we behave and our attitudes towards romantic relationships
  158. 158Evaluation HAZAN + SHAFFER: retrospective data-asked about early experiences as a child = answered inaccurately
    -recalled incorrectly, or recalled based on what others have told them not what they recall themselves
  159. 159Evaluation HAZAN + SHAFFER: Volunteer Sample-likely to be a biased sample
    -only people who were interested would respond
    -may be many securely attached people that did not respond but who had difficulty with relationships
    -lacks external validity
  160. 160Evaluation HAZAN + SHAFFER: Nature + Nurture-early experiences of sensitive responsiveness leads to formation of particular attachment type => different neural pathways produced => specific behaviour patterns in relationships as an adult
  161. 161Evaluation HAZAN + SHAFFER: Gave socially desirable answers-responses not always truthful
    -respond to present themselves in a positive light
    -social desirability bias
    *said relationships were more stable than they were
  162. 162What does BOWLBY'S Continuity Hypothesis sate?-infants develop an internal-working model based on their attachment to primary caregiver
    -acts as a mental template for what we expect in future relationships
    -early experiences = develop different neural pathways
  163. 163Evaluation BOWLBY: Other explanations-child temperament may influence both attachment type and quality of future relationships
    -counters Bowlby's view that it is determined by internal working model
  164. 164Evaluation BOWLBY: Supporting research-HARLOW'S monkeys

Informationen

Beschreibung
A level Psychology Karteikarten am Attachment, erstellt von Jemima Glazin am 15/02/2017.
Erstellt von
Jemima Glazin
Aufrufe
0
Bewertung

Feedback

Worum geht es?

Wie gefällt dir das neue Design?

Dein Eindruck