Psychology

Meltzoff and Moore- got parents to pull faces at babies as young as 2 weeks. found association in the face the parents pulled and response of the babies. Shows babies as young as 2 weeks can form relationships.

Strength- high external validity- done in babies homes with their parents-likely to act more natural

Weakness- babies cannot give consent

Weakness- Oostenbroecet re-did and found no evidence of babies imitating

Role of the Father- Grossman did a longitudinal study looking at both parents behaviour and relationship with children. Found fathers had more adolesuence (relating to play) so role of father more play orientated.

Tiffany Field looked at PCG mum PCG dad and SCG dad. found PCG dad spent as much time interacting with baby as PCG mum and more than SCG dad showing they can step up if needed.

Weakness- if Grossman says fathers are so different why arent children without a father or only a father different.

Weakness- psychologists are looking into different aspects of it. some look at fathers as SCG and some PCG. some say they are different to mothers some say can take on the role.

Weakness- fathers dont tend to be PCG. we dont know why could be female hormones or that they have more caring characteristics.

Schaffer and Emerson- studied 60 babies in homes once a month visiting and asking mums about seperation anxiety and stranger anxiety. Came up with stages of attachment with information found:

Asocial stage- 0-2 months- babies bond with people and objects and start to recognise surroundings

Discriminate stage- 2-7 months- babies prefer people over objects and recognise people

Specific attachment- 7-24 months- babies form specific attachments usually to PCG

Multiple attachments- 8+ months- babies extend attachments to others

Strength- high external validity- done in babies homes

Strength - high internal validity- all interviews followed same procedure

Weakness- biased- all middle class from Glasgow, cant be generalised

Classical conditioning- learning to associate 2 things so we respond to both the same. PCG=neutral stimulus but when always gives baby food association between CG and food. food makes baby happy so baby happy when sees PCG.

Operant conditioning- learning to repeat or not repeat a behaviour depending on the consequence. if behaviour causes postive concequence behaviour is likely to be repeated as has been reinforced e.g. when babies smile people respond positively so learn to do it more.

Weakness- Can form multiple attachments and not all will feed so could just form attachments to those spending time with them not just those feeding them.

Weakness- doesnt explain why babies get so emotional about PCG.

Weakness- Harlows monkeys preffered the cloth monkey to the one with food. And Lorenz geese imprinted before given food

Said one attachment like no one else (mono). now called PCG. 2 principles to clarify this: the law of continuity-more constant and predictable a childs care=better quality of attachment. The law of accumulated seperation-every seperation from the figure adds up. 

Bowlby said babies born with innate 'cute' behaviours e.g. smiling and cooing called social releasers used to activate the adult attachment system. said critical period for infant attachment system is 2 years

interal working model- mental representation of our attachments to PCG. go through families.

Weakness-Schaffer and Emerson found yes have one attachment first but most babies then have multiple attachments.

Strength- Bailey et al found if mum had poor attachment to own mum had poor attachemnt to child. support idea IWM go through families.

Strength- Brazleton looked at mums and babies if mums didnt respond to social releasers babies were distressed some even motionless. Shows importance of adult replies to these.

Mary Ainsworth- controlled observation. CG and baby in room encouraged to play-tests exploration and secure base. Stranger joins-test stranger anxiety. CG leaves-tests stranger and seperation anxiety. CG returns-tests reunion behaviour and stranger leaves. CG leaves baby alone-sep anxiety. stranger back-stranger anxiety CG back-reunion. 

Found secure attachment-happy to explore, regularly go back to CG, moderate sep and stranger anxiety-60%-75% British toddlers

Insecure avoidant-explore freely but dont seek proximity, little to no reaction when CG leaves and little reaction on reunion. little stranger anxiety 20%-25% British toddlers

Insecure resistent- seek great proximity and explore less. huge stranger and seperation anxiety but resist comfort when CG back. 3% British toddlers

Weakness-bad ethics- babies purposely distressed

Strength- high external validity. babies have to be in unfamillier situations lots e.g. doctors so this would be like an everyday experience.

Strength- social workers use to acess quality of attachment with baby and PCG-real life app

Van Iizendoorn- meta analysis-compared rates of attachment types in different countries. found more variation within rather than between countries. Germany was most insecure avoidant-because independant, mothers leave children a lot. most insecure resistant-israel most secure-Great Britain.

Simonella - italy- see if babies at different proportions had different attachment types. 76 12month babies assessed 50% secure which is a decrease in amount secure showing cultural change can change pattern of secure attachment.

Weakness- Cultural bias- based on how children are raised in different cultures

Weakness- basic issues with strange sit itself kagen said more to do with temperment than relationship with CG

Strength- High internal validity as big sample reduces impact of anomolous results

44 juvenille thieves- got 44 teens accused of stealing- interviewed them for signs of affectionless psychopathy e.g. lack of affection lack of guilt lack of empathy for victims. and families interviewed to see if early seperation from mothers-first 2 years (critical period) 14/44 called affectionless psychopaths and 12/14 had been seperated from mother in first 2 years. 

Goldfar found decrease in IQ in children in institutions rather than with high emotional care.

Weakness- Used some orphans from war, deprived from many aspects of care not just maternal.

Weakness- may be biased. bowlby knew what he wanted to find and did the interviews himself

Weakness- Hilda repeated with 500 people found prolonged seperation didnt predict criminality or difficulty forming relationships-other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal depreviation.

Romanian orphan studies- Rutter et al- got 165 romanian orphans adopted in GB to see if care could make up for early experiences. asessed at 4, 6, 11, 15. 1/2 showed mental retardation and majorly unnourished. different rates of recovery if adopted before 6 months IQ mean- 102 if 6months-2years- 86. after 6 months more clingy.

Zeanah et al looked at 95 children spending 90% time in care compared to control of 50. measured attachment with the strange situation. only 19% secure compared to 74% of control.

Strength- longitudinal study- very accurate as looks at effects of institutionalisation over time

Strength- improved understanding of effects of institutionalisation leading to improvements to the care children got

Weakness- Romanian orphanage conditons really bad cant generalise to all places

Bowlby-internal working model acts as template for further relationships.If first experience is lovig with reliable CG child will assume that is how to act in a relationship and copy. 

Rowan and Peter looked at attachment type and bullying. they found insecure avoindant- victims and insecure resistant- bullies.

McCathy looked at people whos attachment type was decided when young, Secure-best friendship and relationships. Insecure avoidant- stuggle with intimacy in relationships. Insecure resistant- hard to maintain friendships.

Strength- Bailey et al found mothers=sim attachment to babies as to own mothers- can predict patterns of future attachments.

Weakness- p's may have had traumatic relationships and may give irrelvant data

Weakness- Zimmerman found no link between quality of infant and adolsent attachment. not what we would expect if internal WM were important.