Attachment

Front 1

Harry Harlow (1959)

Back 1

young monkeys became distressed when their cages were cleaned. so he did a further experiment. created 2 wire mothers one lactating and one covered in blankets

Front 2

Schaffer and Emerson (1964)

Back 2

60 babies from glasgow. wokring class families. most attached to those who interacted with them the most

Front 3

Lorenz (1952)

Back 3

half eggs with mother

Front 4

tronick et al (1992)

Back 4

studied an african tribe the Efe

Front 5

Mary Ainsworth (1967)

Back 5

uganda in 1954. did a 2 year observation. those who showed sensitivity tended to have more securely attached infants-cried little and seemed content to explore.

Front 6

Ainsworth et al (1971)

Back 6

26 mothers from baltimore area. strange situation.

Front 7

Ainsworth and Wittig (1969)

Back 7

devised strange situation -cause mild stress. stranger anxiety and separation anxiety.

Front 8

secure attachment

Back 8

harmonious and co operative interactions. Not likely to cry if care giver leaves the room. when feeling anxious seek close bodily contact.

Front 9

insecure-avoidant

Back 9

tend to avoid social interaction

Front 10

insecure - resistant

Back 10

seek and reject social interaction. show distress when caregiver leaves. conflicting desries to be comforted.

Front 11

insercure-disorganised

Back 11

lack of consistency.

Front 12

Prior and Glaser (2006)

Back 12

secure attachment:less emotional dependance

Front 13

Ainsworth et al (1978)

Back 13

using sensitivity scale-securely attached: cooperative and accesible. inscurely-more unrepsonsive with crying and less affectionate. avoidant-more rejecting

Front 14

Grossman and Grossman(1991)

Back 14

germans tended to be classified as insecure-avoidant. keeping interpersonal distance.

Front 15

Takahashi (1990)

Back 15

60 middle class japanese. no evidence of insecure avoidant

Front 16

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenburg (1988)

Back 16

meta analysis-32 studies. secure attachment always most common. insecure avoidant was next common apart frm israel and japan.

Front 17

Rothbaum et al (2000)

Back 17

sensitivity hypothesis: was related to responsivness and sensitivity -japan promotes dependance rather than indepencce. sensitivity has opposite obejectives. competence in japan is not showing feelings-in america-emotionally and socially competent.

Front 18

Posada and Jacobs (2001)

Back 18

alot of evidence to support universality. china

Front 19

spitz and wolf (1946)

Back 19

100 'normal' children who were placed in an instiution became severly depressed within a few months.

Front 20

The Robertsons (1967-73)

Back 20

first film: Laura-admitted to hospital. 8 day stay. she alternated between stress and calm. visited occasionally by her parents and begs to go home. as time goes on

Front 21

The Robertsons (1967-73)

Back 21

Jane

Front 22

The Robertsons (1967-73)

Back 22

John. placed in residential nursery for 9 days. first 2 days he acts fairly normal. this changes gradually

Front 23

Curtiss (1997) Rymer (1993)

Back 23

Genie-locked in a room by her father who thought she ws retarded until she was 13 years old. when found she couldn't stand erect and couldn't speak. she never fully socially recovered. distinct uninterest in other people. lack of early emotional privation. past bowlbys sensitive period. was genie retarded at birth? did she form an attachment with her mother?

Front 24

Koluchova (1976) (1991)

Back 24

spent first 7 years of her life locked up by step mother. when discovered they couldn't talk. they were cared by loving sisters and by 14 had near normal social and intellectual functioning. (1991) had excellent relationship with foster family. were they discovered young enough and could recover? formed attachments to each other?

Front 25

Jill Hodges and Barbara Tizard (1989)

Back 25

followed group of 65 British children around from early life to adolescence. The children had been placed in one institution when they were less than 4 months old. this age-children not formed attachments. early study of children usggested -70% were described as not being able to care for anyone deeply. up to 16. some remained in institution-most left. the children who went back to original families-less likely to form attachments with mothers. (in comparison to 'normal' children) adopted children were closely attached-similar to control group. Did have problems with peers. less likely to be liked. more quarrlesome and bullies. proves Bowlbys theory that if attachments are failed to form during sensitive period then irreversible effect on emotional development.

Front 26

Rutter et al (2007)

Back 26

100 Romanian orphans-assessed at 4

Front 27

children with attachment disorder have:

Back 27

no preferred attachment figure.

Front 28

two types of attachment disorders?

Back 28

reactive/inhibited-shy

Front 29

Quinton et al (1984)

Back 29

compared group of women who had been brought up in instituions with a control group of 50 women brought up at home. when women in 20s-ex-institutional women were experiencing difficulties acting as parents e.g. more ex-institutional women had children who had spent time in care.

Front 30

Gardner (1972)

Back 30

girl born with malformation-she had to be fed through a tube. her mother never picked her up or cuddled her through fear of dislodging tube. at 8 months the girl was severly withdrawn and physically stunted and admitted to hospital for treatment. she thrived on the attention

Front 31

Violata and Russel (1994)

Back 31

Meta analysis-88 studies-regular day care more than 20 hours a week-negative effect on socio-emotional development in young children.

Front 32

NICHD

Back 32

over 1000 children-diverse families-10 diff locations. when studied at 5-more time child spent in day care of anykind- or quality-more adults rated as aggressive and disobedient. in full time day care-3x more likely to show behaviour like frequent arguing

Front 33

Belsky et al (2007)

Back 33

looked at same children at end of primary education and still found a link between day care experience and increased aggressivness.

Front 34

Melhuish (2004)

Back 34

found evidence that high levels of day care -especially nursery care in first two years-elevate risk of developing anti-social behaviour.

Front 35

Sroufe et al (2005)

Back 35

evidence that children in day care are less likely to be securely attached. eg belsky and rovine: - (1988)assessed using the strange situation in infants who had been recieving 20 hours or more of day care per week before they were 1 year old. these children more likelyu to be insecurely attached. therefore less successful in peer relationships.

Front 36

Brown and Harris (1978)

Back 36

many depressed women claimed their low mood was due to isolation of being home with children.

Front 37

Alison Clarke-Stuart (1994)

Back 37

150 children-those in day care were consistently more advanced in socio-development. these are independence

Front 38

Field (1991)

Back 38

amount of time in day care positively correlated to the number of friends they had once they went to school.