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

Kostenlos registrieren

Karteikarten

Attachment

Anna Stevens Psychology AS - Level Englisch 56 Karten

Karten in diesem Stapel (56)

  1. 1Attachment DefinitionA two-way, enduring, emotional tie to a specific other person
  2. 2Features of Caregiver-Infant InteractionReciprocity: two-way interaction
    Interactional Synchrony: timing of behaviours and emotions synchronise
  3. 3Evidence for reciprocity and interactional synchronyCondon and Sander: frame-to-frame analysis of babies' movements to sound of adult conversation, moved in time.
    Meltzoff & Moore: infants as young as 3 days old imitate facial expressions
  4. 4Evidence for importance of reciprocity and interactional synchronyIsabella et al: pairs that showed more interactional synchrony during first year were more likely to be securely attached (BUT CORRELATIONAL RESULTS)
    However, Le Vine et al: Kenyan mothers show little interaction but securely attached
  5. 5Practical ApplicationTherapy with children who have had disrupted attachment successfully makes use of interactional synchrony and reciprocity
  6. 6Schaffer's Stages of Attachment Stage 1Pre-Attachment Stage
    (0-3 months)
    Attracted to other humans, preferring them to objects, shown through smiling
  7. 7Schaffer's Stages of Attachment Stage 2Indiscriminate Attachment Stage
    (3 - 7/8 months)
    Begin to discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar faces, but still allow strangers to handle them
  8. 8Schaffer's Stages of Attachment Stage 3Discriminate Attachment Stage
    (7/8 months onwards)
    Develop specific attachments, staying close to them and showing separation anxiety, avoid strangers and protest if handle them
  9. 9Schaffer's Stages of Attachment Stage 5Multiple Attachment Stage
    (7/8 months onwards)
    Form strong attachments with other major caregivers (grandparents) and non-caregivers (peers), fear of strangers weaken, attachment to mother remains strongest
  10. 10Bowlby's view on Multiple Attachments and Fathers' RoleMonotropy: One primary attachment, from which they form their internal working model
  11. 11Rutter's view on Multiple Attachments and Fathers' RolesAll attachments have equal importance and all work together to form the child's internal working model
  12. 12Evidence FOR Fathers' RolesLamb: Fathers who became main care providers seem able to quickly develop greater sensitivity to children's needs
  13. 13Evidence AGAINST Fathers' RolesHardy: Less able to detect low levels of distress
    Geiger: Play interactions are more exciting and pleasurable, mothers' are more nurturing and affectionate
  14. 14Further Evidence FOR Fathers' RolesSecure attachments with fathers go on to have better relationships with peers, less problem behaviours and more able to regulate emotions
    Provide support for mothers, allowing better mother-infant relationship
  15. 15Development of Attachment ResearchSchaffer and Emerson: 60 newborns + mothers (working-class, Glasgow) naturalistic observations, interviews and diaries in homes, each month for 1st year + 18 months, measured separation and stranger anxieties.
  16. 16Development of Attachments Research continued18 months - 87% had at least 2 attachments, 31% 5+
    Similar quality attachments to different adults
    39% - primary attachment not to main caregiver
    More secure if interacted and responded quickly
  17. 17LorenzHalf of gosling eggs incubated and saw Lorenz as first large moving object to imprinted, irreversible, critical period of 24 hours, goslings tried to mate with humans later on (influences adult relationships), imprinting is an innate and instinctive behaviour
  18. 18Lorenz EvaluationDifficult to generalise non-human studies to human behaviour
    Sluckin: Critical period or sensitive period where imprinting occurs more easily
  19. 19HarlowNew-born monkeys given surrogate wire mother with milk and cloth mother, spent up to 18 hours with cloth, only went to wire for food, went to cloth under stress and explored environment more comfortably with cloth. Attachment concerns emotional security more than food
  20. 20Harlow EvaluationDifficult to generalise non-human studies to human behaviours
    Unethical - separated from mothers, put under stress, some forcibly impregnated and found they were poor mothers and abused their offspring
  21. 21Explanations of Attachment: Learning Theory - Classical ConditioningFood (UCS) brings infant relief from hunger (UCR), caregiver becomes associated with relief from hunger (CR). Attached when infant seeks
  22. 22Explanations of Attachment: Learning Theory - Operant ConditioningHunger discomfort causes crying, caregiver brings food, removes discomfort - NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT - association between caregiver and hunger removal.
    Caregiver negatively reinforced as it removes crying.
  23. 23Evidence supporting Learning Theory as an explanation for attachmentDollard & Miller:
    Babies fed about 2000 times in first year, generally by primary caregiver - highly plausible that association could be formed
  24. 24Evidence against Learning Theory as an explanation for attachmentHarlow: Emotional security more important than food
    Schaffer & Emerson: First attachment was not always with main caregiver
    Fox: Israeli communal farms - fed by carers but infants still more attached to mothers
  25. 25Criticism for Learning Theory as an explanation of attachmentReductionist - simplifying attachment to just learnt behaviour
  26. 26Explanations of Attachment: Bowlby's Monotropic TheoryAttachment is an innate behaviour, born with instinctive behaviours (social releases - crying, smiling) that encourage caregiver's response. Adaption for survival. One main attachment (usually mother) forms IWM, acting as a template for all future relationships. Critical period of 2 half years
  27. 27Evidence supporting Bowlby's Monotropic Theory as an explanation of attachmentLorenz: goslings imprinted as soon as hatched, irreversible, critical period, imprinted on just one object, those that imprinted on humans later tried to mate with them
    Hazan & Shaver: questionnaire showed link between attachment type and later relationships
  28. 28Evidence against Bowlby's Monotropic Theory as an explanation of attachmentRutter: Orphans adopted after 2 half years were able to form attachments with adoptive parents. No particular attachment behaviour exclusively towards mothers.
    Schaffer & Emerson: Most children had multiple attachments of similar importance
  29. 29Criticism of Bowlby's Monotropic Theory as an explanation of attachmentMay have placed too much emphasis on role of infant attachment on IWM - evidence that other experiences throughout life have more significant correlation with experiences of adult relationships (e.g. parents' divorce)
  30. 30Types of Attachment: Securely AttachedConfident to explore if caregiver is present, moderate separation protest, moderate stranger anxiety (looks to caregiver for reassurance), comforted by reunion.
  31. 31Types of Attachment: Insecure-AvoidantConfident to explore, no separation protest, no stranger anxiety (but does not engage with stranger), unconcerned with reunion.
  32. 32Types of Attachment: Insecure-ResistantLacking confidence to explore, extreme separation protest, extreme stranger anxiety, ambivalent reunion behaviour (wants attachment figure to be present but rejects on reunion).
  33. 33Ainsworth et al - the Strange SituationControlled observations of mothers and infants in unfamiliar room, 8 step procedure involving mother and stranger entering and leaving room at various times. Observed: willingness to explore, separation protest, stranger anxiety, reunion behaviour.
  34. 34Ainsworth et al - the Strange Situation Findings70% Secure (mothers sensitive to infants needs), 15% avoidant (sometimes ignored infants), 15% resistant (ambivalent)
    Link between mothers behaviour and attachment type - Caregiver Sensitivity Hypothesis
  35. 35Strengths of Ainsworth et al's researchWell established procedure still used now
    High reliability - same attachment types found in replications, same type found in same individuals over time
  36. 36Limitations of Ainsworth et al's researchLacks population validity - white, middle class Americans
    Lacks ecological validity - controlled lab settings, participant variables
    Ethics - distress
  37. 37Evidence against Ainsworth et alMain & Weston: children acted differently depending on which parent they were with - displays quality of relationship rather than infant's attachment type
  38. 38Cultural Variations Van IjzendoornMeta-analysis of 32 studies from 8 countries
    Secure was highest, western cultures were more avoidant (Germany), non-western more resistant (Japan)
    Differences in samples from same country usually bigger than in different countries
  39. 39Van Ijzendoorn ConclusionsOverall consistency suggests some genetic characteristics
    But strange situation procedure seems to have different meanings in different cultures due to different child rearing practices
  40. 40Van Ijzendoorn EvaluationOver-simplistic to view one country as one culture
    Many cultures not represented
    Sample sizes makes comparisons difficult (e.g. 18 studies in US, only one or two from some cultures
  41. 41Maternal DeprivationOccurs when infant experiences prolonged separation from main attachment figure (usually mother), causing disruption in attachment bond
  42. 42Short-term effects of MD1) Protest - screams when parent leaves, clings to try stop them from leaving
    2) Despair - appears calmer but refuses others' comfort, withdrawn
    3) Detachment - engages with other people, reject/show anger on caregivers return
  43. 43Evidence for short-term effects of MDRobertson & Robertson:
    Observed children during separation with mothers, John (17 months) in residential nursery for 9 days, showed protest, despair and detachment, pulled away from mother on return, ongoing anxiety for months afterwards
  44. 44Long-term effects of MDSerious, permanent damage to emotional (affectionless psychopathy), social (delinquency) and intellectual (lower IQ, difficulties at school) development.
  45. 45Evidence for long-term effects of MDBowlby:
    86% of children who were both thieves and affectionless psychopaths had experienced early, prolonged separations from their mothers, children who were only thieves was only 17%
  46. 46Evaluation of Maternal DeprivationCorrelational research, separation doesn't always mean deprivation (Robertson & Robertson: foster care children did not show MD due to substitute emotional care), deprivation can occur without separation (Radke-Yarrow et al: 55% of children with severely depressed mothers were insecurely attached, real-world application
  47. 47Instituationalisation and Privation DefinitionsInstitutionalisation: period of time spent away from family home, inadequate emotional care
    Privation: complete lack of attachment
  48. 48Effects of PrivationClinging, dependent behaviour, disinhibited attachment (seeks attention from all adults equally), reduced empathy, lack of guilt, inability to form long-lasting relationships, inability to follow rules, impaired language/social skills
  49. 49Rutter et al ProcedureOngoing longitudinal study of 111 Romanian orphans adopted by British families, assessed on arrival, 4, 6, 11, 15 and early adulthood, measured physical, cognitive and social development
  50. 50Rutter et al Findings50% delayed cognitively and physically on initial assessement
    Age 4: Improvements, adopted before 6 months showed normal development
    Age 6: Further improvements, still showed attachment issues
    Age 15: Most enduring effect was disinhibited attachment
  51. 51Rutter et al EvaluationReliable - Chrisholm: orphans adopted after 6 months showed more disinhibited attachment than those before 4 months.
    Longitudinal - clear picture over time but drop outs. Lack of control variables - difficult to separate effects of emotional, physical an cognitive deprivation. Real-Life Application - importance of early adoption
  52. 52Bowlby & the continuity of attachmentPrimary attachment reflected in adult relationships through IWM, helps an individual know what to expect from future relationships
  53. 53Evidence in childhood relationshipsMulis et al: Attachment behaviours used with peers in late childhood reflect infancy
    Youngblade & Belsky: 3-5 year old securely attached children were more curious, competent, empathetic, more likely to form close relationships, etc.
  54. 54Evaluation of childhood relationshipsCorrelational research
    May be due to other factors
    Temperament hypothesis: attachment style could be due to innate personality characteristics
  55. 55Evidence in adult relationshipsHazan & Shaver: "Love Quiz" in newspaper about adult and childhood relationships, strong correlation between the two, percentages of secure adults matched those in the strange situation, securely attached had longer lasting relationships, less likely to divorce, insecure more prone to loneliness
  56. 56Evaluation of adult relationshipsCorrelational research, could be due to other factors (temperament hypothesis), attachment type in strange situation is only one attachment, Zimmerman et al: other life changing experiences (e.g. parental divorce) can have larger influence on quality of adult relationships

Informationen

Beschreibung
AS - Level Psychology (Attachment) Karteikarten am Attachment, erstellt von Anna Stevens am 29/04/2017.
Erstellt von
Anna Stevens
Aufrufe
1
Bewertung

Feedback

Worum geht es?

Wie gefällt dir das neue Design?

Dein Eindruck