¡GoConqr estrena diseño! Cuéntanos qué te parece.

Regístrate gratis

Test

Attachment AO3

Emilia Stanford 14 preguntas Actualizado el 5 mar 2021

Hacer el test

Este test tiene tipos de pregunta que se abren en el reproductor de siempre.

Preguntas del test (14)

  1. 1One [blank_start]strength[blank_end] of this research is that caregiver infant interaction are usually filmed in [blank_start]laboratories[blank_end]. This means that other activities that might distract a baby can be [blank_start]controlled.[blank_end] Also, using films from [blank_start]different angles[blank_end] means that observations can be [blank_start]recorded and analysed[blank_end] later. Therefore, it is unlikely that researchers will miss seeing [blank_start]key behaviour.[blank_end] Furthermore, having filmed interaction means that more than one observer can record data and establish [blank_start]inter-rater reliability[blank_end] of the observations. Finally, [blank_start]babies don’t know they’re being observed[blank_end], so there behaviour does not hacking in response too observations. Therefore, data collected in such research should have [blank_start]good reliability and validity[blank_end]
    1. Alaboratories
    2. Bstrength
    3. Ccontrolled.
    4. Ddifferent angles
    5. Erecorded and analysed
    6. Fkey behaviour.
    7. Ginter-rater reliability
    8. Hbabies don’t know they’re being observed
    9. Igood reliability and validity
  2. 2One [blank_start]limitation[blank_end] of research into caregiver infant interactions is that it is [blank_start]hard to interpret babies behaviours[blank_end]. Young babies [blank_start]lack coordination[blank_end] as their bodies are almost [blank_start]immobile[blank_end]. The movement being observed are just [blank_start]small hand movements[blank_end] or [blank_start]subtle changes in expression[blank_end]. It is therefore, difficult to be sure, For example, whether a [blank_start]baby is smiling or just passing wind[blank_end]. It is also difficult to determine what is taking place from the [blank_start]babies perspective[blank_end]. Researchers also cannot know, whether a movement such as a hand is [blank_start]random or triggered[blank_end] by something that the caregiver has done. This means that we cannot be certain that the behaviour seen in caregiver infant interactions have [blank_start]special meanings.[blank_end]
    1. Alimitation
    2. Bhard to interpret babies behaviours
    3. Clack coordination
    4. Dimmobile
    5. Esmall hand movements
    6. Fsubtle changes in expression
    7. Gbaby is smiling or just passing wind
    8. Hbabies perspective
    9. Irandom or triggered
    10. Jspecial meanings.
  3. 3One [blank_start]strength[blank_end] of [blank_start]Shaffer and Emerson’s[blank_end] research is that it has [blank_start]high external validity[blank_end]. Shaffer and Emerson conducted the observations in each [blank_start]child’s own home[blank_end] which means that the children and parents were more likely to [blank_start]act naturally[blank_end]. Therefore, the study has [blank_start]good external validity[blank_end] as the results are likely to apply to other children from a [blank_start]similar demographic[blank_end] in their own homes.
    1. Astrength
    2. BShaffer and Emerson’s
    3. Chigh external validity
    4. Dchild’s own home
    5. Eact naturally
    6. Fgood external validity
    7. Gsimilar demographic
  4. 4A [blank_start]limitation[blank_end] of [blank_start]Schaffer’s[blank_end] research is that it l[blank_start]acks population validity[blank_end]. The sample consisted of only [blank_start]60 working class mothers[blank_end] and [blank_start]babies from Glasgow[blank_end], who may form very different attachments with their infants when compared with [blank_start]wealthier families[blank_end] from other countries. Therefore, we are unable to [blank_start]generalise[blank_end] the results of this study to mothers and babies from other countries and backgrounds as their behaviour might not be [blank_start]comparable[blank_end].
    1. Alimitation
    2. BSchaffer’s
    3. Cacks population validity
    4. D60 working class mothers
    5. Ebabies from Glasgow
    6. Fwealthier families
    7. Ggeneralise
    8. Hcomparable
  5. 5There is research evidence that provides support for the [blank_start]role of the father[blank_end] as a [blank_start]‘playmate’[blank_end] rather than [blank_start]primary caregiver[blank_end]. Research by [blank_start]Geiger[blank_end] (1996) found that a fathers’ play interactions were more [blank_start]exciting[blank_end] in comparison to a mothers’. However, the mothers’ play interactions were more [blank_start]affectionate and nurturing[blank_end]. This suggests that the role of the father is in fact as a [blank_start]playmate[blank_end] and not as a [blank_start]sensitive parent[blank_end] who responds to the needs of their children. These results also confirm that the [blank_start]mother takes on a nurturing role[blank_end].
    1. AGeiger
    2. Brole of the father
    3. C‘playmate’
    4. Dprimary caregiver
    5. Eexciting
    6. Faffectionate and nurturing
    7. Gplaymate
    8. Hsensitive parent
    9. Imother takes on a nurturing role
  6. 6Research evidence suggests that fathers are not as equipped as mothers to provide a [blank_start]sensitive and nurturing attachment[blank_end]. [blank_start]Hrdy[blank_end] (1999) found that fathers were less able to detect [blank_start]low levels of infant distress[blank_end], in comparison to mothers. These results appear to support the [blank_start]biological explanation[blank_end] that the lack of [blank_start]oestrogen[blank_end] in men means that fathers are not equipped [blank_start]innately[blank_end] to form close attachments with their children. This suggests that the role of the father is, to some extent, [blank_start]biologically determined[blank_end] and that a father’s role is restricted because of their [blank_start]makeup[blank_end]. This provides further evidence that fathers are not able to provide a [blank_start]sensitive[blank_end] and [blank_start]nurturing type of attachment[blank_end], as they are [blank_start]unable to detect stress[blank_end] in their children.
    1. AHrdy
    2. Bsensitive and nurturing attachment
    3. Clow levels of infant distress
    4. Dbiological explanation
    5. Eoestrogen
    6. Finnately
    7. Gbiologically determined
    8. Hmakeup
    9. Inurturing type of attachment
    10. Jsensitive
    11. Kunable to detect stress
  7. 7Since [blank_start]Lorenz[blank_end] only studied [blank_start]non-human animals[blank_end] – a sample of [blank_start]greylag geese[blank_end] – we cannot [blank_start]generalise[blank_end] the results to humans since we are unable to conclude that they would behave in exactly the same way. The attachment formation in [blank_start]mammals[blank_end] appears to be very different to that of bird species with parents, specifically mothers, showing more [blank_start]emotional reactions[blank_end] to their offspring with the added ability of being able to form attachments beyond the [blank_start]first few hours[blank_end] after birth. So, whilst some of [blank_start]Lorenz’s[blank_end] findings have greatly influenced our understanding of [blank_start]development and attachment[blank_end] formation, caution must be applied when drawing [blank_start]wider conclusions[blank_end] about the results.
    1. Anon-human animals
    2. BLorenz
    3. Cgreylag geese
    4. Dgeneralise
    5. Emammals
    6. Femotional reactions
    7. GLorenz’s
    8. Hfirst few hours
    9. Idevelopment and attachment
    10. Jwider conclusions
  8. 8One [blank_start]strength[blank_end] of [blank_start]Lorenz’s[blank_end] research is existence of support for the context of [blank_start]imprinting[blank_end]. a study by [blank_start]Regolin and Valloritgara[blank_end] support [blank_start]Lorenz’s[blank_end] idea of [blank_start]imprinting[blank_end]. chicks were exposed to simple shape combinations that moved, such as a triangle with a rectangle in front. a range of [blank_start]shape combinations[blank_end] were placed in front of them and they followed the original most closely. This supports the view that young animals are born with an [blank_start]innate mechanism[blank_end] to [blank_start]imprint[blank_end] on a moving object present in the [blank_start]critical window[blank_end] or development, as predicted by [blank_start]Lorenz[blank_end].
    1. ALorenz’s
    2. Bimprinting
    3. CRegolin and Valloritgara
    4. DLorenz’s
    5. Eimprinting
    6. Fshape combinations
    7. GLorenz
    8. Hcritical window
    9. Iinnate mechanism
    10. Jimprint
    11. Kstrength
  9. 9The results from [blank_start]Harlow’s[blank_end] study is of [blank_start]large practical value[blank_end] since it provides insight into [blank_start]attachment[blank_end] formation. This has important [blank_start]real-world applications[blank_end] that can be useful in a range of practical situations. For example, [blank_start]Howe[blank_end] (1998) reports that the knowledge gained from [blank_start]Harlow’s[blank_end] research has helped [blank_start]social workers[blank_end] understand risk factors in [blank_start]neglect and abuse[blank_end] cases with human children which can then serve to prevent it occurring or, at the very least, recognise when to intervene. In addition, there are [blank_start]practical applications[blank_end] which are used in the care of [blank_start]captive wild monkeys[blank_end] in zoos or [blank_start]breeding programmes[blank_end] to ensure that they have adequate attachment figures as part of their care.
    1. AHarlow’s
    2. Blarge practical value
    3. Cattachment
    4. Dreal-world applications
    5. EHowe
    6. FHarlow’s
    7. Gsocial workers
    8. Hneglect and abuse
    9. Ipractical applications
    10. Jcaptive wild monkeys
    11. Kbreeding programmes
  10. 10One [blank_start]limitation[blank_end] of [blank_start]Harlow's[blank_end] research is the ability to [blank_start]generalise findings and conclusions[blank_end] for monkeys to humans. [blank_start]Rhesus monkeys[blank_end] much more similar to humans than [blank_start]Lorenz’s birds[blank_end] and all mammals share some common attachment behaviours. However the human brain in human behaviours is still [blank_start]more complex[blank_end] than that of monkeys. This means that it may not be appropriate to [blank_start]generalise Harlow's findings to humans[blank_end]
    1. Alimitation
    2. BHarlow's
    3. Cgeneralise findings and conclusions
    4. DRhesus monkeys
    5. ELorenz’s birds
    6. Fmore complex
    7. Ggeneralise Harlow's findings to humans

Información

Descripción
Caregiver Infant interaction, Schaffer stages of Attachment, the role of the father, animal studies, learning theory, Bowlby's monotropic theory
Idioma
English
Visitas
11
Historial
Creado el 5 mar 2021 · actualizado el 5 mar 2021
Valoración
Aún sin valoraciones
Valora este test
Valora este test

Escríbenos

¿Sobre qué es tu mensaje?

¿Qué te parece el nuevo diseño?

¿Te gusta?