Attachment

What is reciprocity?

Responding to the action of another with a similar action, where the actions of one partner elicit a response from the other partner. The responses aren't necessarily similar like in interactional synchrony

1 of 147

Who proved this?

Jaffe et al 1973- From birth babies move in a rhythm when interacting with an adult like a conversation

2 of 147

What did Brazelton suggest?

This basic rhythm is an important precursor to later communications. Allows a caregiver to anticipate behaviour and respond appropriately. Lays the foundation for later attachment

3 of 147

What is interactional synchrony?

When 2 people interact they tend to mirror what the others doing

4 of 147

Who conducted a study into this and when?

Meltzoff + Moore 1977

5 of 147

What was the procedure?

Four stimuli and observed infant's behaviour in response. Observer watched tapes and then this video was judged by independent observers. Each noted all instances of mouth opening, termination, tongue protrusion and termination. Each scored twice

6 of 147

What were the findings?

Found there was an association between the infant behaviour and that of the adult model. All scores for reliability were greater than .92

7 of 147

What did they find in 1983?

Same synchrony with 3 year olds so it must be innate

8 of 147

What did Piaget think?

Didn't believe it was intentional and true imitation only developed towards the end of the first year, anything before was a kind of 'response training'- repeating a behaviour that was rewarded

9 of 147

Who supported Meltzoff and Moore's study?

Murray + Trevarthen 1985

10 of 147

What was the procedure?

2 month olds interacted with their mum through video call. then played a video of her so she wasn't responding

11 of 147

What were the findings?

Acute distress. Tried to attack their mothers' interest but, gaining no response, turned away

12 of 147

What are the evaluation point titles?

Testing infant behaviour, failure to replicate, is the behaviour intentional? and individual differences

13 of 147

What is the first evaluation point of caregiver-infant interactions?

Testing infant behaviour- Infants' mouths are in fairly constant motion and the expressions tested occur a lot. So Meltzoff + Moore had the observer not see what was shown to the infants

14 of 147

What is the second evaluation point of caregiver-infant interaction?

Failure to replicate- Koepke et al: Failed to replicate the findings. Marian et al: Replicated the video call one. Found infants couldn't distinguish live from videotaped

15 of 147

What is the third evaluation point of caregiver-infant interaction?

Is it intentional?- Abravanel + DeYoung: Observed behaviour interacting with 2 objects, one simulating tongue movements and one mouth opening/closing. Aged 5-12 weeks made little response. So it's intentional

16 of 147

What is the fourth evaluation point of caregiver-infant interaction?

Individual differences-Isabella et al: More strongly attached pairs showed greater interactional synchrony. Heimann: Found infants who demonstrate lots of imitation have a better quality of relationship at 3 months

17 of 147

Who made the stages of attachment and when?

Schaffer + Emerson 1964

18 of 147

What was their experimental procedure?

60 infants from mainly working class homes in Glasgow. Ranged from 5-23 weeks and studied until age 1. Visited every 4 weeks. Mother reported response to separation in 7 situations and described intensity of protests on a 4 point scale and who to

19 of 147

What were their findings?

At 21-24 few had stranger anxiety and specific attachment. By 53-78 weeks, they all had. It had slowly increased

20 of 147

What is the indiscriminate attachments stage?

Birth-2 months. Produce similar responses to all objects. Towards end, show a greater preference for social stimuli and to be more content with people. Reciprocity and interactional synchrony play a role in establishing relationships

21 of 147

What is the beginnings of attachment stage?

4 months. Prefer human company. Distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar people. Still comforted by anyone

22 of 147

What is the discriminate attachment stage?

7 months. Show separation anxiety from one person, joy at reunion and are most comforted by them. Their primary attachment figure. Separation anxiety begins. Most intensely attached infants had mothers who responded quickly and sensitively

23 of 147

Who was usually the primary attachment figure?

In 65% the first specific attachment was the mother and in a further 30% the mother was the first joint. Fathers were joint 27% but alone only 3%

24 of 147

What is the multiple attachments stage?

Within one month of first being attached, 29% had multiple attachments (Secondary attachments). Showed separation anxiety in these also. Within 6 months it was 78%

25 of 147

What did Lamb find?

Lamb found in 1997 that studies have shown little relationship between father accessibility and infant-father attachment

26 of 147

Why would men not be psychologically equipped form an intense attachment?

Lack women's emotional sensitivity. Oestrogen underlies caring behaviour so women are more orientated towards interpersonal goals. There's cultural expectations with stereotypes that affect men; feminine to be emotional

27 of 147

Who supported this?

Heerman et al 1994

28 of 147

Who didn't support this?

Frodi et al 1978: Showed videotapes of infants crying and found no differences in psychological responses

29 of 147

What did Frank et al find?

Frank et al 1997: In 2 parent families where the father is the primary caregiver, both parents often share the role of primary attachment figure

30 of 147

What role do fathers play as secondary attachments?

Geiger 1996: Mor eplayful, physically active and better at providing challenging situations. A father is an exciting playmate whereas mothers are more conventional

31 of 147

What did White and Woollett say?

The lack of sensitivity may be seen as positive because it fosters problem solving by making greater communicative and cognitive demands on children

32 of 147

What are the evaluation point titles?

Unreliable data, biased sample, cultural variations and stage theories

33 of 147

What is the first evaluation point of the development of attachment?

Unreliable data- Based on mothers' reports

34 of 147

What is the second evaluation point of the development of attachment?

Biased sample- One social group. Also the 60s. Things have changed. Cohn et al: The number of dads who choose to stay at home has quadrupled over the past 25 years

35 of 147

What is the third evaluation point of the development of attachment?

Cultural variations- Sagi et al: Compared infants raised in communal environments (Israeli kibbutzim) with family-based sleeping arrangements. Spend their time in a community children's home. Closeness of attachment twice as common in family based

36 of 147

What is the fourth evaluation point of the development of attachment?

Stage theories- Suggest development is inflexible. Becomes a standard by which families are judged and may be classed as abnormal

37 of 147

Who did the imprinting study and when?

Lorenz 1935

38 of 147

What was the procedure?

Took gosling eggs and divided them into 2 groups. One with their mother and one with him. when they hatched they saw him first. Started following him

39 of 147

What were the findings?

When he put them altogether, they divided up again. Limited to a critical period, if not exposed to a moving object then they won't imprint

40 of 147

What were the long-lasting effects?

Process is irreversible and long lasting. Martina used to sleep on his bed every night. Sexual imprinting so effected later mating- Animals mate with what was imprinted

41 of 147

Who did the study into comfort or food and when?

Harlow 1959

42 of 147

What was the procedure?

2 wire mothers. One wrapped in cloth. 8 infant rhesus monkeys. 4 had a bottle on cloth mother, 4 on the other. Also observed responses when scared

43 of 147

What were the findings?

All spent most to their time with the cloth mother. When scared all clung onto cloth mother. And when playing with a new thing they kept one foot on it

44 of 147

What were the long-lasting effects?

Motherless monkeys were socially abnormal- froze or fled when approached by other monkeys- and sexually abnormal- didn't show correct mating behaviour and didn't cradle babies

45 of 147

What was the critical period for these effects?

If they spent time with peers they recovered but had to happen before 3 months. Having more than 6 months with only a wire mother wasn't recoverable

46 of 147

What are the evaluation point titles?

Support, confounding variable, generalising and ethics

47 of 147

What is the first evaluation point of animal studies?

Support- Guiton: Leghorn chicks. Exposed to yellow gloves for feeding. Imprinted. Also found male chickens tried to mate with the gloves

48 of 147

What is the second evaluation point of animal studies?

Confounding variable- Two heads were different. Cloth mother might've had a more attractive head

49 of 147

What is the third evaluation point of animal studies?

Generalising- Humans differ e.g. free will. However, there is support for instance Schaffer and Emerson's stages

50 of 147

What is the fourth evaluation point of animal studies?

Ethics- Harlow created lasting emotional harm on the monkeys but did have a significant effect on our understanding of attachment

51 of 147

Who first investigated classical conditioning?

Pavlov

52 of 147

What does it entail?

If a neutral stimulus is associated with a UCS it takes on its properties and will produce the same response. So the NS becomes the conditioned stimulus and produces a conditioned response

53 of 147

What is an example of this for infants?

Food (UCS) creates pleasure (UCR) Mother (NS) creates no response. NS and UCS paired. So NS is no CS and produces pleasure (CR)

54 of 147

Who first investigated operant conditioning?

B. F. Skinner

55 of 147

Who offered an explanation based on operant conditioning and the drive reduction theory?

Dollard + Miller 1950

56 of 147

What did they state?

A 'drive' is something that motivates behaviour. So when uncomfortable, drive is created to reduce it. E.g. when infant is fed, produces pleasure so it's negative reinforcement and will be repeated

57 of 147

Who made up the learning theory?

Bandura

58 of 147

Who suggested it's use for attachment?

Hay + Vespo 1988

59 of 147

What did they propose?

Children observe parents' affectionate behaviour and imitate those. Parents would also deliberately instruct children how to behave in relationships and reward appropriate behaviours

60 of 147

Who are the evaluation point titles?

Animals, Harlow, some explanatory power

61 of 147

What is the first evaluation point of the learning theory?

Animals- Based on animal studies. Behaviourists believe were no different from animals. Our behaviour comes from the same building blocks. Non-bheaiovurists argue attachment involves innate predispositions and mental activity it can't explain

62 of 147

What is the second evaluation point of the learning theory?

Harlow- Showed contact comfort is more important than food

63 of 147

What is the third evaluation point of the learning theory?

Some explanatory power- Infants do learn through association and reinforcement just not with food. It may the attention and responsiveness from a caregiver. Or responsiveness is imitated and so they learn how to conduct relationships

64 of 147

What is the fourth evaluation point of the learning theory?

Bowlby- His theory has advantages. Explains why attachments form, learning theory only explains how. Also explains no advantages of attachment where Bowlby shows protection from harm so it's evolved for survival

65 of 147

Who made the monotropic attachment theory and when?

Bowlby 1969

66 of 147

Why does attachment form?

Because it serves an important survival function. Our distant infant ancestors would've been in danger if they didn't remain close to an adult. Attachments must be formed in 2 directions

67 of 147

What is the critical period?

Babies have an innate drive to be attached. Attachment critical period is 2.5 years. Infants who don't have the opportunity during this time will have difficult forming attachments later on

68 of 147

What determines who an infant will attach to?

Bowlby proposed attachment is determined by sensitivity

69 of 147

What is the first part of this?

Social releasers- Such as smiling and having babyface, which elicit caregiving. Innate mechanisms

70 of 147

What is the second part of this?

Monotropy- Infants have one special emotional bond- the primary attachment relationship. Often the mother. Also form secondary attachments which provide an emotional safety net and are important for psychological and social development

71 of 147

What is the internal working model?

Infant has one special relationship and forms a mental representation of this relationship

72 of 147

What are the consequences of this in short term?

Gives the child insight into the caregiver's behaviour and enables the cild to influence the caregiver's behaviour so a true partnership can form

73 of 147

What are the consequences of this in long term?

Acts as a template for all future relationships because it generates expectations about what intimate, loving relationships are like

74 of 147

What does the continuity hypothesis propose?

Individuals who are strong attached in infancy continue to be socially and emotionally competent and the opposite

75 of 147

What are the evaluation point titles?

Adaptive?, Sensitive period, continuity hypothesis and alternate explanation

76 of 147

What is the first evaluation point for Bowlby's theory?

Adaptive?- Suggested attachment starts at 3 months. Quite late, would've been vital straight away. Monkeys cling to their mothers. Human infants don't need to but when they start crawling it's vital, supporting Bowlby's theory

77 of 147

What is the second evaluation point for Bowlby's theory?

Sensitive period- Rutter et al showed it's less likely for attachments to form after but it's not impossible. So researchers prefer to use the term sensitive period

78 of 147

What is the third evaluation point for Bowlby's theory?

Continuity hypothesis- Sroufe et al: Minnesota parent-child project. Began in 1975 and mothers' and childrens' behaviour were assessed using questionnaires and observations. Found continuity. Securely attached highest rated social competence later

79 of 147

What is the fourth evaluation point for Bowlby's theory?

Temperament hypothesis- Kagan: Infants with an easy temperament are more likely to become securely attached as it's easier to interact with them. Belsky + Rovine: Infants 1-3 days old with behavioural instability later likely to be insecure attached

80 of 147

Who made the strange situation?

Ainsworth et al

81 of 147

What was the procedure?

9x9 space into 16 squares. 8 episodes. Caregiver and stranger stay or leave to test separation anxiety, reunion behaviour, stranger anxiety and the novel environment. Recorded or one way mirror. Record every 15 seconds using behavioural categories

82 of 147

What were the findings?

Total of 106 middle class infants. All exploratory behaviours declined in all infants from episode 2 onwards but crying increased. Found 3 main patterns of behaviour and put them into 3 attachment types

83 of 147

What is the secure attachment type?

Harmonious and cooperative interactions with caregiver. Not likely to show seperation or stranger anxiety. When anxious they seek contact with caregiver and are easily soothed, but may be reluctant to leave prematurely. Seek and comfortable socially

84 of 147

What is the insecure-avoidant type?

Avoid social interaction and intimacy. Showed little response to separation and don't seek proximity on reunion. If picked up, shows little or no tendency to cling or resist being put down. High levels of anxiousness. Happy to explore alone

85 of 147

What is the insecure-resistant type?

Seeks and resists intimacy and social interaction. Respond to separation with immediate and intense distress, and behave similar to strangers. On reunion, show conflicting desires for and against contact; may resist being picked up but want proximity

86 of 147

What are the evaluation point titles?

Other types, high reliability, application and maternal reflective functioning

87 of 147

What is the first evaluation point for the strange situation?

Other types- Main + Soloman: Analysed over 200 tapes. Proposed insecure-disorganised. Don't have a consistent type. Lack a coherent strategy for separation stress. Van Ijzendoorn et al: Meta-analysis of 80 studies. 15% insecure-disorganised

88 of 147

What is the second evaluation point for the strange situation?

High reliability- High inter-observer reliability. Found almost perfect agreement of 0.94 when rating exploratory behaviour

89 of 147

What is the third evaluation point for the strange situation?

Application- Cooper et al: Circle of security project. Teaches caregivers to better understand signals of distress and increase their understanding. Decrease from 60% to 15% in disordered caregivers and increase in secure infants from 32% to 40%

90 of 147

What is the fourth evaluation point for the strange situation?

Maternal reflective functioning- Ainsworth suggest maternal sensitivity but studies found low correlations. Slade et al: Found a greater role for MRF. RF is the ability to understand what someone is thinking and feeling

91 of 147

Who did the key study into cultural variations?

Van Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg 1988

92 of 147

What was the procedure?

Meta-analysis of 32 studies. Overall 2000 strange situation classifications in 8 countries. Wanted to find evidence of intercultural differences and intercultural differences

93 of 147

What are intercultural differences?

Differences between different countries/cultures

94 of 147

What are intracultural differences?

Differences in the findings from studies conducted within the same culture

95 of 147

What were the findings?

Between countries/cultures, differences were small. Secure attachment was always most common. Insecure-avoidant was next except Israeli and Japan (Collectivists). Within cultures, variation was 1.5 times greater than between

96 of 147

Who supported their findings into cultural similarities?

Tronick et al 1992: African tribe, the Efe, from Zaire who live in extended family groups. Infants were looked after and breastfed by different women but usually slept with their own mothers. Still showed one primary attachment

97 of 147

What did Grossmann + Grossmann (1991) find in terms of cultural differences?

Higher levels of insecure attachment amongst German infants than other cultures. May due to childrearing practices. German culture involves keeping interpersonal distance between parents and children; infants don't proximity seek and so seem secure

98 of 147

Who did the other study into cultural differences?

Takahashi 1990

99 of 147

What was the procedure?

Used the strange situation to study 60 middle class Japanese infants and their mothers

100 of 147

What were the findings?

Found similar rates of secure to Ainsworth. But showed no evidence of insecure-avoidant and high rates of insecure-resistant (32%) Particularly distressed on being left alone; for 90% it was stopped. Appear so as they rarely separate from mothers

101 of 147

What are the evaluation point titles?

Not innate, nation, cross-cultural research and cultural bias

102 of 147

What is the first evaluation point for cultural variations?

Not innate- Bowlby says attachment is innate and not affected by culture. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg suggest at least some similarities can be explained by mass media

103 of 147

What is the second evaluation point for cultural variations?

Nation- Compared countries not cultures. Van Ijzendoorn + Sagi: Found Tokyo (Urban) had similar distribution to Western whereas more insecure-resistant in a more rural sample

104 of 147

What is the third evaluation point for cultural variations?

Cross-cultural research- Tools are bias. Strange situation is American. Assumes willingness to explore is a sign of secure. Not for everyone. In traditional Japanese culture, dependence is a sign of secure. It's imposed etic

105 of 147

What is the fourth evaluation point for cultural variations?

Culture bias- Rothbaum et al: Also the theory. Looked into the contrasts between American and Japanese culture. E.g. Continuity hypothesis: For America competence is in terms of individuation. In Japan it's inhibition of emotions and group-oriented

106 of 147

Who made the theory of maternal deprivation?

Bowlby

107 of 147

When did he conduct the key study and what was it called?

44 Juvenile thieves in 1944

108 of 147

What was the procedure?

Analysed case histories of patients in the clinic he worked in. All were emotionally maladjusted. Studied 88- Half caught stealing and the other half a control group. Some thieves were affection less psychopaths- lacked normal affection and shame

109 of 147

What were the findings?

86% of the affection less thieves experienced frequent operations from mothers early compared to 17% of the other thieves. None of the control had but 39% of all thieves had. Often consisted of stays in foster homes or hospitals

110 of 147

What did they think was important at that time?

It was assumed a good standard of food and physical care was the key importance of good care. So the findings of Bowlby's study came as a surprise

111 of 147

What did Bowlby think?

Wasn't enough to make sure a child was well'ed and kept safe. They needed a 'warm, intimate and continuous relationship' with a mother to ensure continuing normal mental health. Become emotionally disturbed without it

112 of 147

What is the critical period?

Seperation will only cause emotional disturbance if it happens before the age of 2.5 years and if there's no substitute. Also felt there was a continuing risk until 5

113 of 147

What are the long term consequences?

Emotional maladjustment or mental health problems such as depression

114 of 147

What are the evaluation point titles?

Support, application, individual differences and deprivation vs privation

115 of 147

What is the first evaluation point of Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation?

Support- Bifulco et al: Women who'd experienced separation from their mothers because of death or separation of more than a year. Found 25% experienced anxiety or depression, compared to 15% of a control. Problems were greater when loss was before 6

116 of 147

What is the second evaluation point of Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation?

Application- Before children were separated from parents when at hospital. Visiting was discouraged or forbidden. Robertson filmed a 2 year old during 8 days at hospital and she was frequently distressed and begged to go. Caused major social change

117 of 147

What is the third evaluation point of Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation?

Differences- Barrett: Secure attached cope better. Bowlby: 60 children under 4 at a TB hospital. Nurses weren't substitutes. Only listed once a week. Assessed in adolescence. 63% were more maladjusted but fine intellectually. Said secure coped better

118 of 147

What is the fourth evaluation point of Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation?

Deprivation vs privation- Rutter: Definition wasn't clear. Rutter believed the lack of an attachment bond was worse than loss. So said privation was never making a attachment and deprivation is when an attachment occurs but is lost

119 of 147

Who conducted the Romanian orphans study and when?

Rutter + Sonuga-burke 2010

120 of 147

What was the procedure?

165 Romanian institutionalised children. 111 adopted before 2 and 54 by 4. Tested at regular 4, 6, 11, and 15 to assess physical, cognitive and social development. Interviews with parents and teachers. Compared to 52 UK children adopted before 6 mths

121 of 147

What were the findings?

At adoption they lagged; smaller and mentally retarded. By 4 some caught up. True for almost all adopted before 6 mths. Significant deficits remain in a minority not adopted before 6 mths. Peer relationship issues and disinhibited attachment

122 of 147

What did Le Mare and Audet (2006) do and find?

Study of 36 Romanian orphans adopted to Canadian families. Physically smaller than a matched control group at 4.5 years but disappeared by 10.5. Same for physical health

123 of 147

What did Zeanah et al (2005) do and find?

Compared 136 Romanian children who had, on average, spent 90% of their lives in an institution, to control of Romanian children who hadn't. Aged 12-31 months and assessed with Strange Situation. Showed disinhibited attachment

124 of 147

What are the effects of institutionalisation?

Physical underdevelopment, intellectual under-functioning, disinhibited attachment and poor parenting

125 of 147

What is the physical underdevelopment effect?

Children in institutional care are usually physically small; research has shown (e.g. Gardner, 1972) that lack of emotional care rather than poor nourishment is the cause of deprivation dwarfism

126 of 147

What is the intellectual under-functioning effect?

Cognitive development is affected by emotional deprivation

127 of 147

What is the disinhibited attachment effect?

A form of insecure attachment where children don't discriminate between people they choose as attachment figures. Such children will treat near-strangers with inappropriate familiarity and may be attention seeking

128 of 147

What is the poor parenting effect?

Showed by Harlow. Quinton et al 1984: Compared 50 women who'd been reared in institutions to a control of 50 other women. When in 20s, they experienced extreme difficulties acting as parents. E.g. more them had children who spent time in care

129 of 147

What are the evaluation point titles?

Individual differences, application, longitudinal and deprivation is only one factor

130 of 147

What is the first evaluation point of the effects of institutionalisation?

Individual differences-In all of the studies some children aren't as strongly affected. Rutter: Said some might've received special attention in the institution and so had some early attachment experiences. Bowlby did show individual differences

131 of 147

What is the second evaluation point of the effects of institutionalisation?

Application- Shows the importance of early adoption. In the past, mothers were encouraged to nurse for a significant period. By the time of adoption, sensitive period might've gone. Today, adopted within the first week. Singer et al shows it works

132 of 147

What is the third evaluation point of the effects of institutionalisation?

Longitudinal- Without such studies we may mistakenly concluded there are major effects whereas some of these show they disappear after sufficient time and high-quality care

133 of 147

What is the fourth evaluation point of the effects of institutionalisation?

Deprivation is only one factor- Physical conditions were appalling, impacting health. Lack of cognitive stimulation also. It's more likely damage only occurs when there's multiple risks. Turner + Lloyd: Poor infancy is usually followed with poor care

134 of 147

Who did the key study into the influence of early attachment and when?

Hazan + Shaver 1987

135 of 147

What was the procedure?

Placed 'Love Quiz' in the Rocky Mountain News. Asked questions about current attachment experiences and history. Also about attitudes towards love. analysed 620 responses; 205 men, 415 women

136 of 147

What were the findings?

56% secure, 25% avoidant and 19% resistant. Positive correlation between attachment type and love experiences. Secure; happy and trusting love and accept partner despite faults. Secure=10 years. A + R= 5-6. Also, secure tend to have positive IWM

137 of 147

What are the behaviours influenced by the internal working model?

Childhood friendships, poor parenting, romantic relationships and mental health

138 of 147

How are childhood friendships influenced?

Minnesota child-parent study found continuity between early attachment and later emotional/social behaviour. Secure were highest rated for social competence later, less isolated, more popular and more empathetic. As secure have higher expectations

139 of 147

How is poor parenting influenced?

Showed by Harlow and Quinton et al. Lack of an IWM means individuals lack a reference point to form relationships with their own children

140 of 147

How are romantic relationships influenced?

Shown by Hazan and Shaver

141 of 147

How is mental health influenced?

Lack of attachment during critical period would mean no IWM. Children with attachment disorder have no preferred attachment figure, an inability to interact and experience neglect

142 of 147

What are the evaluation point titles?

Correlational, determinist, low correlations and alternative explanation

143 of 147

What is the first evaluation point of the influence of early attachment?

Correlational- Can't claim a relationship. Attachment style and love styles could be caused by something different e.g. temperament

144 of 147

What is the second evaluation point of the influence of early attachment?

Determinist-States insecurely attached are doomed to bad relationships. Many researchers have found participants experiencing happy adult relationships despite not being securely attached

145 of 147

What is the third evaluation point of the influence of early attachment?

Low correlations- Fraley: Review of 27 samples where infants were assessed in infancy and later. Found correlations from 0.50-0.10

146 of 147

What is the fourth evaluation point of the influence of early attachment?

Alternative explanation- Feeney: Adults are guided by a self-verification process; the tendency to seek others who confirm your expectations of relationships so it's the relationships causing the attachment type

147 of 147

Get Revising

Attachment

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Psychology resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Psychology resources: