Attachment
- Created by: Daniel Smart
- Created on: 26-05-18 12:24
View mindmap
- Attachment
- Caregiver-infant interactions
- Observations don't tell us purpose of synchrony and reciprocity
- Well-controlled procedures
- Research into mother-infant interactions is socially sensitive
- Hard to know what is happening when observing infants
- Potential value to society
- Role of the father
- Researchers interested in different questions
- Evidence undermines idea of fathers having distinct roles
- Research fails to provide clear answer about fathers and primary attachments
- Social biases prevent objective observation
- Economic implications
- Stages of attachment
- 1. Asocial 2. Indiscriminate 3. Specific 4. Multiple
- Schaffer & Emerson (1964)
- Problem studying asocial year
- 1. Asocial 2. Indiscriminate 3. Specific 4. Multiple
- Problem with how multiple attachment is assessed
- Longitudinal
- External validity
- Problem studying asocial year
- Animal studies
- Lorenz - Imprinting
- Generalises findings from birds to humans
- Support for concept of imprinting - Guiton
- Observations and conclusions questioned
- Harlow - Contact comfort
- Practical application
- Ethical issues
- Generalises findings from monkeys to humans
- Lorenz - Imprinting
- Learning theory
- Importance of food
- Lorenz and Harlow provide evidence against this
- Schaffer showed some factors more important than food
- Ignores reciprocity and interactional synchrony
- CC
- Some elements involved e.g. associations between PCG and comfort
- OC
- NR
- Drive reduction
- Importance of food
- Bowlby
- Monotropic Theory
- Mixed evidence
- Support for IWM - Bailey
- Socially sensitive
- Temperament
- Maternal deprivation
- 44 thieves
- Biased
- Counter-evidence - Lewis
- Critical period more of a sensitive period
- Levy - rats
- 44 thieves
- Monotropic Theory
- Ainsworth's **
- A - Insecure-avoidant B - Secure C - Insecure-resistant
- Predictive validity
- Inter-rater reliability
- Culture-bound test
- More than 3 attachment types
- Cultural variations
- Van Ijendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) meta-analysis
- Large sample-size
- Sample not representative of cultures
- ** method biased towards American / British culture
- Temperament a confounding variable in **
- Simonelli (2014)
- ** method biased towards American / British culture
- Simonelli (2014)
- Simonelli (2014)
- Van Ijendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) meta-analysis
- Romanian Orphan studies
- Rutter (2011) English & Romanian adoptees
- Practical application
- Fewer confounding variables - high internal validity
- Lack generalis-ability
- LT effects not yet clear
- Zeanah (2005) early intervention
- Lack generalis-ability
- Rutter (2011) English & Romanian adoptees
- Influence on later relationships
- IWM
- Mixed evidence
- Lacks validity due to interview bias
- Association rather than causation
- Hazan and Shaver (1987) Romantic relationships
- IWM is unconscious - indirect evidence
- IWM
- Caregiver-infant interactions
Comments
No comments have yet been made