Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
9 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Outline Types of Attachment: Secure
|
- Most desirable - associated w/ healthy outcomes. - Infant uses the CG as a secure base (in strange situation). - Moderate stranger & separation anxiety. - Joy on reunion - Develops as a result of sensitive responding of CG to infant's needs. |
|
|
|
Outline Types of Attachment: Insecure-Avoidant
|
- Characterised by low anxiety but weak attachment. - Low stranger & separation anxiety. - Little response to reunion (an avoidance of CG). - Result of the CG's lack of responsiveness to infant's needs. |
|
|
|
Outline Types of Attachment: Insecure-Resistant
|
- Characterised by high anxiety & strong attachment. - High levels of stranger & separation anxiety. - Alternating between seeking closeness & wanting distance @ contact. - Develops as a result of CG's ambivalence (inconsistency) to infant's needs. |
|
|
|
A & P of Ainsworth's Research: Strange Situation
|
Aim - Investigate individual differences in types of attachment, especially differences between secure & insecure attachments. - Wanted to see how infants responded in a new mildly stressful situation. Procedure - Took place in a purpose built lab. -Research method = controlled observation. - Researchers watched through one way mirrors & videotapinh. - Consisted of 8 episodes (each lasted 3 minutes). - American infants between age of 12-18months. - Observers recorded infant & mothers' behaviour to assess secure & insecure attachment, noting key behaviours: - Exploration & Secure Base - more securely attached child will explore while using CG as safe base. - Separation Anxiety - Stranger Anxiety - Reunion Behaviour |
|
|
|
F & C of Ainsworth's Research: Strange Situation
|
Findings - There were 3 main types of attachment: - Secure = 70% - willing to explore but regularly return to CG. - Moderate Separation & Stranger anxiety. - Joy on reunion. - Insecure-Avoidant= 20% - explore freely but don't show secure base behaviour. - Little distress on separation - Respond to mother & strange in similar ways. - Avoids contact on reunion. - Insecure-Resistant= 10% - No secure base & not willing to explore. - Very distressed @ separation. - Resists strangers. - Seeks & resists contact on reunion Conclusion - Significant individual differences which may be related to the behaviour responsiveness of CG. - Suggests an innate tendency for attachment is affected by life experiences. |
|
|
|
Strength of Ainsworth's Research: Predictive Validity
|
- Not only does it provide a good measure of attachment that differentiates between diff attachment types but also strongly predicts later development. - Secure Infants - better outcomes ranging from success @ school to adult relationships & friendships in adulthood. - Insecure-Resistant Infants - worst outcome: bullying in later childhood & adult mental health problems. - Supports the predictive validity of types of attachment identified by Ainsworth. |
- What 2 things does this research provide? A good measure of... -Secure infants have what type of outcome & give examples? -Insecure-Resistant Infants have what type of outcome & give examples? - Why is this a strength (title point)? |
|
|
Strength of Ainsworth's Research: Good Reliability
|
- Good inter-rater reliability - Diff observers watching same child & generally agree on what attachment type to classify them w/. - May be b/c observation takes place under controlled conditions & behavioural categories are easy to observe. - Bick et al studied inter-rater reliability in team of Strange Situation observers & found agreement on attachment type for 94% of infants tested. - Strength b/c we can be confident that attachment type of infant identified doesn't just depend on who is observing them, no observer bias. |
- Has good what type of reliability? - What does this mean? - What 2 reasons may this be b/c of (research method & behavioural categories)? - Bick t al's study - 94%. - Why is it a strength - elaborate on lack of observer bias. |
|
|
Limitation of Ainsworth's Research: Cultural Validity
|
- Study was created & tested in the USA. - May be culturally biased - ethn ocentric. - Will reflect norms & values of American culture. - Cultural differences in childhood experiences likely to mean children & mothers respond differently to Strange Situation. - Takashi noted that Strange Situation doesn't work in Japan. - Japanese mothers rarely separated from their babies = high separation anxiety. - @ reunion stage Japanese mothers rushed in & scooped up their baby = hard to observe child's response. - Limitation b/c usefulness of the strange situation in assessing attachment across cultures may be limited. |
- Where was the study created & tested? - So it may be... - Will reflect the norms & .... - What are cultural differences in childhood experiences likely to mean for CG & children? - Takashi - Japan - Mothers re rarely separated from their babies so... @ reunion what did mothers do? And why is this a problem? -Why is this a limitation?
|
|
|
Limitation of Ainsworth's Research: Other Types of Attachment
|
- Main & Solomon found that Ainsworth et al overlooked a 4th type of attachment. - Analysed over 200 Strange Situation videotapes & proposed insecure-disorganised attachment. - Characterised by lack of consistent patterns of social behaviour. - Infants lack a coherent strategy for dealing w/ stress of separation. - E.G, show very strong attachment behaviour which is suddenly followed by avoidance & looking fearful towards CG. - Van Ijzendoorn et al further supported w/ meta-analysis of nearly 80 studies on the US. - They found 15% were classified as insecure-disorganised. -Limitation b/c existence of a disorganised attachment type challenges Ainsworth's notion of attachment. |
- What did Main & Solomon find? - Analysed over how many Strange Situation videotapes & proposed what type of attachment? - What is this attachment characterised by? - What do the infants lack? A coherent strategy for... - Give an examplr. - How did Van Ijzendoorn further support this? - What did he find? 15% - Why is the existence of this new attachment a limitation? |
