Attachment evaluation

?
Research into interactional synchrony, reciprocity and pseudo-imitation.
1. Imitation or result of constant facial movement? 2. Cannot be entirely innate- Isabella et al: high sens.= secure, secure= IS. 3. Replication failure- M+T no diff recorded and live (Marian). 4. Abravnel and De Yong no response to inanimate objects
1 of 10
Schaffer and Emerson stages of attachment.
1. Doesn't state if multiple are equivalent (descriptive not explanatory). 2. Culturally relative (Sagi et al.) Kibbutz community rather than monotropy. 3. Grossmann father, greater % home dads, play development. 4. Sample and SD bias bc self report.
2 of 10
Bowlby- monotropy (development of IWM)
1. Sroufe et al. secure attach= more popular in adolescence. 2. Rutter- sensitive not critical period- adoptees >2.5 yrs still attach. 3. Temperament aids caregiver sensitivity (Kagan, Belsky & Rovine). 4. Historical context-WW2 women in mens' jobs.
3 of 10
Learning theory of attachment (operant and classical conditioning).
1. Animal research, generalisable to complex behaviour? 2. Contact comfort (Harlow) monkeys cloth mother over wire. 3. Bowlby better exp. of why, not just how. 4. DR theory (Hull) disregarded- LT limited by extreme sports?
4 of 10
Types of attachment (Strange Situation, Ainsworth)
1. Main and Solomon insecure disorganised. 2. Main low int validity, measuring qual of one bond, not general type. 3. Application Circle of Security, helps insensitive caregivers. 4. Ethnocentric, e.g. German standard harsh/incompetent.
5 of 10
Cross-cultural variations (van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg meta analysis)
1. Bowlby: universal bc share biology, VI: universal bc mass media. 2. Imposed etic- e.g. exploration West, dependence Japan. 3. VI and Sagi- urban mirrors West, insecure-res. in rural Japan. 4. Rothbaum specific childcare, 'indigenous' theories.
6 of 10
Animal studies (Harlow's monkeys, Lorenz's geese)
1. Guitorn chickens rubber gloves. 2. Hoffman 'more forgiving mechanism- reversible (Guitorn). 3. Harlow different mother heads CV, internal validity. 4. Generalisability to human behaviour- more conscious decision.
7 of 10
Maternal deprivation (Bowlby), inc. 44 Juvenile Thieves.
1. Ind. diffs personality, secure less affected (Barrett et al.). 2. Rutter- differentiation privation and deprivation- p more damaging. 3. Application hospital care, 63% TB kids maladjusted. 4. Bifulco et al.- mat. sep. >1 yr 25% rate of depression.
8 of 10
Institutionalisation (Romanian orphans) Rutter and Songua- Barke.
1. Le Mare and Audet- no diffs by 10 yrs. 2. Other slowing conditions e.g. poverty and abuse. 3. Application mothers giving up for adoption, now 1st week. 4. Valuable longitudinal research, shown that inst. less damaging than thought.
9 of 10
Influence on adult relationships (Hazan and Shaver love quiz- secure attach = good later relationships).
1. Correlational, no cause and effect- Kagan influence of innate temperament. 2. Retrospective classification- SD bias or forgetting. 3. Deterministic, insecure not always doomed in relationships. 4. Feeney-experience/self-verification process.
10 of 10

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

1. Doesn't state if multiple are equivalent (descriptive not explanatory). 2. Culturally relative (Sagi et al.) Kibbutz community rather than monotropy. 3. Grossmann father, greater % home dads, play development. 4. Sample and SD bias bc self report.

Back

Schaffer and Emerson stages of attachment.

Card 3

Front

1. Sroufe et al. secure attach= more popular in adolescence. 2. Rutter- sensitive not critical period- adoptees >2.5 yrs still attach. 3. Temperament aids caregiver sensitivity (Kagan, Belsky & Rovine). 4. Historical context-WW2 women in mens' jobs.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

1. Animal research, generalisable to complex behaviour? 2. Contact comfort (Harlow) monkeys cloth mother over wire. 3. Bowlby better exp. of why, not just how. 4. DR theory (Hull) disregarded- LT limited by extreme sports?

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

1. Main and Solomon insecure disorganised. 2. Main low int validity, measuring qual of one bond, not general type. 3. Application Circle of Security, helps insensitive caregivers. 4. Ethnocentric, e.g. German standard harsh/incompetent.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Attachment resources »