5424724
Descripción
Fichas por olimcconnell, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por olimcconnell
hace más de 8 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| Caregiver-Infant interactions | Reciprocity: Taking turns as in a conversation, response of a similar action, one action elicits the other (Jaffe: Kind of conversation) Interactional synchrony: Coordinated behaviour, imitation of emotions as well as behaviour (Meltzoff and Moore: imitation of adult) Piaget: behaviour is pseudo-imitation (operant conditioning) |
| Caregiver-Infant interaction (KEY STUDY) | Meltzoff and Moore Controlled observation done as a systematic study Four different stimuli 1. Mouth opening 2. Termination of mouth opening 3. Tongue protrusion 4. Termination of tongue protrusion Judged by independent observers with no knowledge Scored twice so it was reliable |
| Caregiver-Infant interaction (EVALUATION) | 1. Issues with testing infants, they are constantly in motion so it is hard to distinguish what is the behaviour 2. Failure to replicate, Koepke and Marian both couldn't replicate however issues lie in their experiments 3. Individual differences, strongly attached infants demonstrate IS, therefore varies in infant |
| Development of attachment (KEY STUDY) | Schaffer and Emerson Sixty infants from working-class homes in Glasgow Ranged from 5 weeks to 23 weeks old To the age of a year Visited until 1 year Mother reports response to different situations: Left alone Left with people |
| Development of attachment | Stage 1: Indiscriminate attachment, (0 months-2 months) similar response to everything Stage 2: beginnings of attachment, (Around four months) prefer human company and show stranger anxiety Stage 3: specific attachment (7 months-9 months) protest because of separation anxiety, created a primary attachment Stage 4: Multiple attachments (10 months-onwards) develops a wider circle |
| Development of attachment (EVALUATION) | 1. Unreliable data, sample was working class therefore less securely attached 2. Biased sample, from the 1960's up in Glasgow, cannot be generalised 3. Issues with longitudinal, expensive, long winded, participants can drop out |
| Animal Studies (KEY STUDY) | Lorenz PROCEDURE: Took a clutch of geese eggs, divided to two groups One group=Natural mother One group=Lorenz To test imprinting Findings: Quick to divide between mother and Lorenz Because of critical period Imprinting to humans isn't generalisable to all animals Cutlews |
| Animal Studies (KEY STUDY) | Harlow Procedure: Created two wire mothers each with different heads One wrapped in cloth One wire frame Both had a milk bottle 4 monkeys to cloth 4 monkeys to wire Time measured and response to fear Findings: All eight spent more time with the cloth covered Those fed by the wire would get food then return Suggests attachment is because of contact comfort not food |
| Animal Studies (EVALUATION) | 1. Cannot be generalised to human species due to innate biological differences 2. Ethical issues, still causing harm to creatures by taking away from real mother 3. Imprinting issues, may not be irreversible and may be a little more than learning |
| Explanation for attachment Learning theory | All behaviour is learnt rather than inherited Classical conditioning: New conditioned response learned through association between a neutral stimulus (Mother) and an unconditioned stimulus (Food) Operant conditioning: The reduction of discomfort created by hunger is so rewarding so food becomes a primary reinforcer, associated with mother who becomes secondary reinforcer Social learning: Children model parents attachment behaviours |
| Explanation for attachment Learning theory (EVALUATION) | 1. Most research is animal studies, lack external validity because simplified model 2. Attachment is not based on food, as demonstrated in Harlow 3. It can explain some aspects such as attention and responsiveness are rewards |
| Explanation for attachment Bowlby's Mono-tropic Theory | Bowlbys attachment theory states the critical period (3-6 months) is when attachment is formed, afterwards this becomes increasingly difficult Primary attachment figure is detirmined by sensitivity Social releasers elicit care giving and ensure attachment from parent to infant Monotropy - primary attachment has special emotional role, secondary attachments provide safety net Internal working model - acts as template for future relationships creating continuity |
| Explanation for attachment Bowlby's Mono-tropic Theory (EVALUATION) | 1. Attachment is adaptive, linked to features in species, carried till they can crawl hence critical period timing 2. Case studies from Rutter, show that attachment can be formed after the critical period, a contradiction to Bowlby 3. Derived from animal studies as well, and issues with animal studies |
| Types of Attachment (KEY STUDY) | Ainsworth Systematic test of attachment to one caregiver, investigating the effects of separation and strangers 1. Parent and infant play: Attachment 2. Parent sits and infant plays: Secure base 3. Stranger enters and talks to parent: Stranger anxiety 4. Parent leaves, infant plays: Separation anxiety 5. Parent returns/comforts stranger goes: Reunion behaviour 6. Parent leaves: Separation anxiety 7. Stranger returns: Stranger anxiety 8. Parent returns offers comfort: Reunion behaviour |
| Types of Attachment | Secure attachment: Strong and contented attachment of an infant to his or her caregiver, comfortable with social interaction and intimacy Insecure-avoidant: Tend to avoid social interaction and intimacy with others Insecure-resistant: Both seek and reject intimacy and social interaction |
| Types of attachment (EVALUATION) | 1. Insecure-disorganised found in Main and Solomans analysis of 200 studies, further supported by meta-analysis 2. Inter-observer reliability due to agreement within the observers (.94 agreement) 3. Real-life application, used to improve welfare and their lives (Circle of security project) |
| Cultural variation (KEY STUDY) | Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg Meta-anaylis of 32 studies using the strange situation, from 8 countries Secure was the most common across all countries Resistant most common in china, Japan and Israel (Collectivist countries) Variation within = 1.5 times greater than variations between cultures |
| Cultural Variations in attachment | Cultural similarities: Real study supports, African tribe Efe Cultural differences: More insecure attachment in German sample Cultural differences: No avoidant attachment in Japan sample |
| Cultural variation in attachment (EVALUATION) | 1. Ethno-centricism since it has multiple meanings across culture (individualist views = American) 2. Imposed etic, technique designed in one culture but imposed on another i.e. the strange situation 3. Can develop indigenous theories because of cross-culture research (Rothbaum) |
| Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation | Value of maternal care: children need a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with mother Critical period: frequent separation from mother will have a negative impact if before 2 1/2 years or to the age of 5 Long-term consequences: emotional instability/maladjustment or mental disoders |
| Maternal deprivation (KEY STUDY) | Bowlby Procedure: Studied 88 children, half had been caught stealing (thieves) the other were a control group Suggested the thieves were affection less, lacked shame and responsibility Findings: 86% of thieves experienced separation that was frequent None of the control group experienced separation |
| Maternal deprivation (EVALUATION) | 1. Real life application to children in housing post-war (Robertson) 2. Doesn't consider emotional separation (Yarrow depression) 3. Individual differences, research shows that not all children are affected the same way |
| Effects of institutionalisation (KEY STUDY) | Rutter Procedure: 165 Romanian orphans, physical, cognitive and social development tested in intervals (4, 6, 11 and 15) Findings: Lagged behind British equivalent in all aspects Beyond six months had the greatest effect |
| Effects of institutionalisation | Physical underdevelopment Intellectual under functioning Dish-inhibited attachment |
| Effects of institutionalisation (EVALUATION) | 1. Individual differences, some children appear to recover despite no attachments 2. Real-life application, adoption could benefit from the research for children's welfare 3. Longitudinal studies are time consuming, expensive and also sometimes ineffective |
| The influence of early attachment | Internal working model: Model of self and attachment partner based on their joint attachment history which generates expectations Behaviours influenced by IWM, childhood relationships, poor parenting, romantic relationships and mental health |
| The influence of early attachment (EVALUATION) | Hazan and Shaver Procedure: 'Love quiz' placed in Rocky mountain magazine Asked questions about attachment experiences Analysed 620 responses Findings: Positive relationship between attachment type and love experiences/attitudes |
| The influence of early attachment (EVALUATION) | 1. Correlational research, IWM may not cause later relationship, temperament may be an intervening variable 2. Retrospective, relies on past stories, could be bias for desirability 3. Alternative explanations provided by Feeney, self verification |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.