Good interactions with CG, separation protest, stranger anxiety, joy at reunion and settles quickly
16 of 27
Anxious Insecure Avoidant Attachment (20%)
No interaction, no separation protest, no stranger anxiety, no reunion behaviour, Approach Avoidance and Distant CG
17 of 27
Anxious Ambivalent Resistant (10%)
Some initial exploration, very distressed at separation, stranger anxiety, reunion behaviour clingy but also angry, doesn't settle quickly, Insecure Relationship
18 of 27
Aim
To investigate different types of attachment
19 of 27
Conclusions
Valid and relaiable test of attachment type- secure better for emotional, cognitive and social development- infant feels less anxiety- less blockage to stimulation- Anxiety blocks stimulation and development as it takes attention away
20 of 27
Strength 1
Implications are it could be used as a tool to identify CG's who require extra support to improve relationship and development of infant
21 of 27
Strength 2
Gathers lots of info on attachment behaviours in small time (time efficient)
22 of 27
Strength 3
Replications of research and other measures of attcachment type suggest its valid and reliable measure of attachment
23 of 27
Limitation 1
Main and Soloman (1990) published finfings few years after ** and found infants could be classified as 4th category- Disorganisation- so some infants were missclassified as D attachment was probably confused with AAR so lower validity in these years
24 of 27
Disorganisation
Unable to organise response to distress
25 of 27
Limitation 2
** developed in USA so may not be suitable for measuring attachment types in other cultures so might not have POPULATION VALIDITY and must be cautious before generalising results
26 of 27
Miyake et al (1985)
said Japanese infans weren't used to separation so were very distressed in ** therefore look AAR- thus may not work well or in valid way in Japan
Comments
No comments have yet been made