Fichas
Attachment
Fichas del conjunto (35)
- 1Reciprocity-Tronick, two way mutual interaction, baby encourages mother to smile back
- 2Interactional Synchrony-Meltzoff& Moore, Simultaneously carry out the same social behaviour or similar pattern, imitating and mirroring, 18 babies filmed and inter observed
-Isabella et a 1989 synchrony greater role in attachment - 3Evaluation-> Based on inferences of babies response,may not be deliberate
-> can't conclude their role in attachment
-> Socially sensitive- return to work
+> natural setting with multiple observers
+>Crotwell, positive applications helps disadvantaged mother and baby - 4Role of the father: Schauffer and Emmerson 1964-strongest attachment to mother age 7 months 75% strong secondary attachment to father by 18 months 27% father joint first, 3% father primary
- 5Grossman 2002-longitudinal study, parents interactions and child relationship through teenage
-quality of mother attachment larger effect, father for play and stimulation - 6Verissimo et al 2001-attachment to both parents and popularity in later school
-direct correlation between father relationship and no. friends at pre school
-important for play - 7Field 1978-filmed 4 month olds in face to face interaction with PCG, secondary
-attachment depends on responsiveness - 8Evaluation-> Inconsistent findings so can't draw a definitive conclusion
-> based on observational findings, not reliable inferences
-> not clear why father not PCG, biological factors e.g. oxytocin
-> MacCallum& Gollombok 2004, no father, no different development
-> Social sensitivity - 9Schauffer and Emmerson's stages of Attachment-Asocial/pre (first few weeks)- human&inanimates
-Indiscriminant (2-7 months)- humans, no pref
-Discriminant (7 months) PCG most responsive
-Multiple (10 months) - 10Study-longitudinal with 60 babies- Glasgow, every month for a year then aged 18 months
-sep&stranger anx.
-50% showed separation anxiety 25-32 weeks- most reciprocal care giver - 11Evaluation+> High external validity, babies behave naturally at home reported by parents
+> Variety of methods, obvs& inter., range greater valid
+> Longitudinal, removed individual difference
-> Difficult to judge babies
-> Cultural bias, multiple from young - 12Lorenz-1950's, Geese, imprinting, 2 groups, incubator or mother, in same container separated to find own mother
-Innate drive to form an attachment to the first moving object after birth, critical period, in this instance 32 hours, aids survival
-sexual imprinting evidence - 13Evaluation->Can't extrapolate animal behaviour
+> Later found the goslings also imprinted on inanimate objects, supports innate nature - 14Harlow-16 Rhesus monkeys, two wire mothers, one cloth and one food, chose the cloth
-as adults the monkeys were more aggressive and less sociable, neglected and killed own offspring
-contact comfort more important than food and serious damage if no attachment - 15Evaluation+> Good application for zoo's and treatment of animals, revolutionised child care
-> Ethical damage to the monkeys
-> Can't extrapolate - 16Learning theory-Dollard and Miller, cupboard love, food, classical conditioning, milk- pleasure, mother- pleasure
-operant, primary reinforce, p- pleasure, n-hunger, secondary, reward - 17Evaluation-> Contradicted by Harlow imprinting
-> Schauffer and Emmerson, reciprocity
-> role of interaction synchrony
-> Makes fathers redundant
-> Environmentally deterministic - 18Evolutionary theory Bowlby-Attchments adaptive and innate
-critical period 2-3 years
-safe base
-monotropy, PCG in critical period that responds most sensitively to social releasers
-internal working model, continuity hypothesis - 19Evaluation+> Lorenz innate
+> would expect to be universal, Tronick, babies other breastfed still one special
+> Schaffer and Emmerson most responsive
-> Tizard& Hodges 21/22 children adopted agter the age of 4 formed secure attachments
-> Feminists - 20The Strange Situation Ainsworth-infants age 9-18 months, stranger/sep/reuinion
-covert obvs two way mirror
-Type B= secure 70-75% UK moderate anx, easily soother
-Type A= Avoidant 20-25%, low anx no comfort
-Type C=Resistant 3% no explore high anx, not soothed - 21Evaluation+> Lab study, replicated reliable
+> good predictive value to guess later development, performance in school
-> Ethnocentric, western culture, takahashi terminate study
-> type D show a mix, too simple descriptions
-> ethical implications stage 6 parents left 20% distressingly cried - 22Cultural variations VJ & K-Van Ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg, meta analysis 32 studies, 8 countries, 2000 infants, secure most common 50% in China to 75% in UK
-Insecure avoidant next most common except Israel and Japan, higher in individualist
-Resistant in collectivist, China, Japan
-Supports that secure attachment innate but credits some cultural role - 23Evaluation-> only 3/8 countries were non-western, ethnocentrism based on western childcare
-> Comparing cultures aims to reduce the difference should consider each differently
+> large sample size
+> Supports Bowlby that innate secure however could also be explained by globalisation of the media - 24Simonella 2014-Italy 76, 12 month olds using strange situation, lots of working mums
-36% insecure avoidant, 50% secure
-mothers from range of backgrounds
-long hours in day care - 25Takahashi 1990-60 middle class Japanese infants, most common secure but no avoidant and high resistant 32%
-distressed on left alone, rarely separated, study terminated because of distress
-Shows cultural bias of strange situation - 26Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis-normal emotional and psychological development
-maternal love necessary for mental health
-critical period, without substitute harm on intellectual, social and emotional development, lower IQ, affection less psychopathy,impulse, irrevarsible - 27Bowlby 44 thieves-44 juvenile thieves, families interviewed about separation, 14 found to be affection less psychopaths, 12 maternally deprived
-shows harmful long term consequences - 28Evaluation+> Supported by animal research, harlows Rhesus monkeys irreversibly damaged
-> Lewis replicated 44 thieves larger sample 500, no strong relationship
-> Rutter, ignored circumstance of MD, a broken home could be more damaging 10/11 isle of wight anti socials
-> many of the 44 thieves moved around so may have never formed an attachment
-> correlation not causation - 29Romanian Orphanage study-Instit, child raised outside of a family home, orphanage etc. difficulty forming attachment
-Disinhibited attachment, attention seeking clingy, friendly to new
-damaged intellect not severe if adopoted before 6 months - 30Rutter et al 2011- ERA study-165 orphans poor conditions before adopted to the UK
-longitudinal, phys, cog, emot, assessed at 4,6,11 and 15, compared to control of 52 UK orphans
-half poor intellect, age 11 before 6m IQ 102, 6m-2y 86, after 2 years 77
-type D common in after 6m, supports critical period - 31Kreppner et al 1999-104 Romanian orphans adopted before age 2
-reported less play and ability to appreciate others emotions than control
-symptoms associated with autism - 32Zeanah et al 2005-95 Romanian children from 1-2.5 years
-strange situation
-19% secure compared to 74% control
-showed signs of type D
-Study not longitudinal so can't report on change over time - 33Evaluation+> Practical application, assigned key workers
-> poor conditions can't generalise
-> not randomly assigned, control could have been biased
->not followed into to adolescence so can't comment on continuity - 34Internal working model-Hazan& Shaver 1987 , 620 love quiz
-Bailey et al 2007, 99 mothers same relationship continuity - 35Evaluation-> Zimmerman 2000 found little relationship would expect stronger
-> mostly questionnaires used, unreliable memory
-> third variable may be involved
-> Clarke& Clarke only probabilistic, could form better relationships due to good later experiences
Información
- Descripción
- A level Psychology Fichas sobre Attachment, creado por Katy Mathur el 30/05/2018.
- Creado por
- Katy Mathur
- Visitas
- 6
- Valoración