As Attachment And Memory - Psychology Studies

Front 1

Atkinson and Shriffrin

Back 1

MSM- 3 memory stores; sensory register (large capacity, short duration), STM (5 item capacity, limited duration) and LTM (unlimited capacity and duration, lack of accessibility = forgetting).

Hint 1

Memory - MSM

Front 2

Jacobs

Back 2

STM digit span 9.3, letter span 7.3

Hint 2

Memory - MSM

Front 3

Baddley

Back 3

Difficulty storing acoustically similar in STM, difficulty storing semantically similar in LTM.

Hint 3

Memory - MSM

Front 4

Tulving

Back 4

Episodic (personal and time-stamped, conscious recall), semantic (general knowledge, not time-stamped, conscious recall) and procedural (motor skills, no conscious recall or time-stamping) LTM. Episodic = temporal lobe, Semantic = prefrontal cortex and Procedural = cerebellum.

Hint 4

Memory - LTM

Front 5

Study of HM (patient)

Back 5

Hippocampus damaged = no episodic LTM, but semantic and procedural were fine.

Hint 5

Memory - LTM

Front 6

Baddley and Hitch (1)

Back 6

WMM - central executive (delegates tasks), phonological loop (auditory store and articulatory process), episodic buffer (records events as they happen) and visuo-spatial sketchpad (visual cache and inner scribe).

Hint 6

Memory - WMM

Front 7

Study of KF (patient)

Back 7

Damage to phonological loop, resulting in problems remembering verbal material but not written material.

Hint 7

Memory - WMM

Front 8

Müller

Back 8

Recall lower when describing paintings if there is an intervening task. Retroactive interference.

Hint 8

Memory - Interference

Front 9

Underwood

Back 9

More lists learnt = lower recall. Proactive interference.

Hint 9

Memory - Interference

Front 10

McGeoch

Back 10

List of words and list of synonyms = 12% recall. List of words and list of digits = 37% recall.

Hint 10

Memory - Interference

Front 11

Baddley and Hitch (2)

Back 11

Rugby players, fewer recent games = less interference so higher recall.

Hint 11

Memory - Interference

Front 12

Tulving and Pearlstone

Back 12

Free recall = 40%, recall with cues = 60%. Encoding specificity = material at coding, increases recall if present at retrieval.

Hint 12

Memory - Retrieval Failure

Front 13

Abernethy

Back 13

Best recall with same instructor in the same room. External context-dependent cues.

Hint 13

Memory - Retrieval Failure

Front 14

Goodwin

Back 14

Recall best when initial state matched state at recall (drunk or sober). Internal state-dependent cues.

Hint 14

Memory - Retrieval Failure

Front 15

Smith and Vela

Back 15

Cues don't always work if they are not meaningful.

Hint 15

Memory - Retrieval Failure

Front 16

Gabbert

Back 16

Recollection of events is affected by others (conformity). Post-event discussion.

Hint 16

Memory - Misleading Information

Front 17

LeRooy

Back 17

Repeat interviewing is problematic with kids.

Hint 17

Memory - Misleading Information

Front 18

Loftus and Palmer

Back 18

Critical question containing 'collided', 'hit', 'smashed', 'bumped' or 'contacted'. Car crash video - speed estimates higher with 'smashed', more likely to report broken glass (when there wasn't actually any). Leading questions.

Hint 18

Memory - Misleading Information

Front 19

Foster

Back 19

High accuracy with video of an armed robbery.

Hint 19

Memory - Misleading Information

Front 20

Johnson

Back 20

Weapon focus effect reduces accuracy of face identification.

Hint 20

Memory - Anxiety

Front 21

Yerkes-Dodson

Back 21

Inverted 'U', medium arousal = highest accuracy, high and low arousal = lower accuracy.

Hint 21

Memory - Anxiety

Front 22

Pickel

Back 22

Weapon focus due to surprise, not anxiety.

Hint 22

Memory - Anxiety

Front 23

Deffenbacher

Back 23

Catastrophe model is better than the Yerkes-Dodson inverted 'U' - does not take into account decline in mental anxiety, only considers physiological anxiety.

Hint 23

Memory - Anxiety

Front 24

Köhnken

Back 24

Review of 53 studies, 34% more information is gained using the cognitive interview.

Hint 24

Memory - Cognitive Interview

Front 25

Milne

Back 25

Cognitive interview is only effective due to report everything and reinstatement of context (not change in perspective or change in order).

Hint 25

Memory - Cognitive Interview

Front 26

Dollard and Miller

Back 26

Cupboard love - learning theory: classical conditioning (association between mother NS and food UCS, mother becomes CS and pleasure CR) and operant conditioning (reduction of hunger, drive, by food, primary reinforcer, mum secondary reinforcer).

Hint 26

Attachment - Learning Theory

Front 27

Hay and Vespo

Back 27

Social learning - kids model parents' attachment behaviours due to praise and reward-giving observed.

Hint 27

Attachment - Learning Theory

Front 28

Bowlby

Back 28

Monotropy: preference for PCG (maternal), primary stronger than secondary. Evolutionary - social releasers (genetic) elicit caregiving and encourage attachment. Continual and responsive care, providing a secure base - in critical period. After 6m, more difficult for attachments to form. IWM and continuity hypothesis - attachment types impact on later relationships. PCG causes the child's attachment type.

Hint 28

Attachment - Monotropy

Front 29

Kagon

Back 29

Temperament hypothesis, personality of child causes the type of attachment.

Hint 29

Attachment - Monotropy

Front 30

Frodi

Back 30

No biological difference in between the galvanic skin responses of mum and dad to a baby crying.

Hint 30

Attachment - Monotropy

Front 31

Lorenz

Back 31

Goose eggs taken from mum, control with mum, then one with Lorenz being the first thing the goslings see. Imprinting occurred within the critical period - was irreversible and dictated choice of mate.

Hint 31

Attachment - Animal Studies

Front 32

Harlow

Back 32

8 rhesus monkeys, taken from mothers at birth. Wire and cloth mother in cage - contact comfort, spent 3/4 of the day with cloth mother, secure base. If not returned to mum before 6m, privation occurred - abnormal sexually and socially.

Hint 32

Attachment - Animal Studies

Front 33

Guiton

Back 33

Leghorn chickens imprinted on rubber gloves - tried to mate with rubber gloves. Imprinting found to be reversible, chickens returned to their own kind.

Hint 33

Attachment - Animal Studies

Front 34

Shaffer and Emerson

Back 34

60 infants and mums, Glasgow, working-class. Monthly interviews until 1yr old, mums rating distress score whenever they left their child. Stages: indiscriminate 0-3m, beginnings 4-6m, specific 7-8m, multiple 8m+.

Hint 34

Attachment - Multiple Attachment

Front 35

Meltzoff and Moore

Back 35

3 day old babies watched video of unrelated person making different facial expressions. Imitated model without reinforcement = imitation is innate.

Hint 35

Attachment - Interactional Synchrony

Front 36

Piaget

Back 36

Learning explanation - pseudo-imitation in the first year, due to positive reinforcement for copying.

Hint 36

Attachment - Interactional Synchrony

Front 37

Murray and Trevarthen

Back 37

When mother does not respond to baby, they are distressed and try to elicit a response. Babies do not just copy the person.

Hint 37

Attachment - Interactional Synchrony

Front 38

Isabella

Back 38

Security of attachment linked to reprocity of caregivers to child.

Hint 38

Attachment - Interactional Synchrony

Front 39

DeYong

Back 39

Lower rates of imitation of mechanical mouth after 5 weeks old, more imitation of humans.

Hint 39

Attachment - Interactional Synchrony

Front 40

Ainsworth and Bell

Back 40

Strange Situation: mother and infant, 100 12-18m Americans, stranger comes in, mum leaves, mum comes back, then both stranger and mum leave, then stranger comes back, then mum. Observations every 15 seconds, behavioural categories: secure base, separation protest, stranger anxiety and reunion behaviour. Intensity rated on a scale of 1 to 10. Results: 75% secure, 15% resistant, 15% avoidant.

Hint 40

Attachment - Individual Differences

Front 41

Main and Weston

Back 41

Strange Situation only assesses maternal attachment.

Hint 41

Attachment - Individual Differences

Front 42

Sroufe

Back 42

Predictive validity = if child secure at 18m, higher career success when adult.

Hint 42

Attachment - Individual Differences

Front 43

Thomas and Chess

Back 43

Temperament affects attachment type - some children are more biologically responsive to attachment behaviours.

Hint 43

Attachment - Individual Differences

Front 44

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenburg

Back 44

Meta-analysis of 32 studies: 8 countries. GB = most secure, next highest was avoidant, China = low number of secure, Israel = high secure, next highest was resistant. In all countries secure attachment type was the norm.

Hint 44

Attachment - Cultural Differences

Front 45

Grossman

Back 45

Different parenting styles = different attachment types. German is an individualistic culture = more independent, most avoidant.

Hint 45

Attachment - Cultural Differences

Front 46

Takahashi

Back 46

Japanese children seem resistant, but they never leave their mums. So the Strange Situation is not valid in Japan? Also subculture found to have more of an effect on difference in attachment - variation within a culture, rather than between cultures. Rural vs. urban Japan.

Hint 46

Attachment - Cultural Differences

Front 47

Rothbaum

Back 47

Attachment types have a Western bias.

Hint 47

Attachment - Cultural Differences

Front 48

Tronick

Back 48

Efe tribe infants put in Strange Situation - altered to fit tribal culture, secure still found to be the most common attachment type.

Hint 48

Attachment - Cultural Differences

Front 49

Bowlby MDH

Back 49

Intimate, warm and continuous care during critical period - if disrupted = deprivation, if no attachment forms = privation.

Hint 49

Attachment - Deprivation

Front 50

Bowlby 44 thieves

Back 50

44 thieves and 44 'normal' children from Bowlby's patient list, 86% of the affectionless psychopaths in the thieves group had experienced separation before 2yrs old. Only 17% of the other thieves experienced separation before 2yrs old, and 2% of the 'normal' group experienced separation before 2yrs old.

Hint 50

Attachment - Deprivation

Front 51

Robertson

Back 51

Short-term effects of deprivation, 5 case studies. Mother substitute given and lots of care with paternal visits = Protest but no Despair. PDD model = Protest Despair Detachment.

Hint 51

Attachment - Deprivation

Front 52

Bilfulco

Back 52

Children with depressed mothers: those who experienced a year long separation = 75% did not get depression. Control (no separation) = 85% did not get depression.

Hint 52

Attachment - Deprivation

Front 53

Parker and Forrest

Back 53

Symptoms of Reactive Attachment Disorder after 5yrs old: e.g. lying, lack of eye contact, stealing, doesn't give or accept affection.

Hint 53

Attachment - Institutionalisation

Front 54

Rutter

Back 54

165 Romanian orphans, longitudinal study: ages 4, 6, 11 and 15yrs old. If adopted before 6m, by 11yrs old = normal development physically, cognitive and social. After 6m, progressively harder to recover. After 2yrs = increasing fall in IQ, disinhibited attachment. 40 orphans dropped out of the study.

Hint 54

Attachment - Institutionalisation

Front 55

Capitanio and Kirkpatrick

Back 55

Deprivation Dwarfism - lack of brain stimulation = stunted growth physically, especially the head. Full recovery made by 11yrs old if adopted.

Hint 55

Attachment - Institutionalisation

Front 56

Skeels and Dye

Back 56

2 orphanages, low care orphanage = fall in IQ after 18m.

Hint 56

Attachment - Institutionalisation

Front 57

Hazan and Shaver

Back 57

Love quiz - 620 newspaper sample, questionnaire asking about beliefs in love and parental relationship. Content analysed to find out attachment type. 55% secure, 30% avoidant and 19% resistant. Parental relationships: secure = good, avoidant = cold mums, resistant = unfair parents. Love beliefs: 72% of secure, 59% of avoidant and 66% of resistant.

Hint 57

Attachment - IWM and Continuity

Front 58

Sroufe

Back 58

Secure attachment to parents = wider friendship groups and higher popularity.

Hint 58

Attachment - IWM and Continuity

Front 59

Feeney

Back 59

Long-lasting adult relationships dominate attachment type, parents' attachment type have a lower impact.

Hint 59

Attachment - IWM and Continuity