Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
evaluations in attachment - Coggle Diagram
evaluations in attachment
evaluation of bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation
the evidence may be poor
many studies contained children orphaned during the second world war therefore the war orphans were traumatized and had poor after care
these factors might have neem the causes of later development issues rather than separation
counter evidence
not all research has supported bowlbys findings as Hilda lewis recreation of the 44 thieves study shows that other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation
the critical period is actually more of a sensitive period
some cases of very servere deprivation have had good outcomes provided the child has some social interaction and good aftercare
animal studies show effects of maternal deprivation
maternal deprivation can have long term effects: levy showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development not aspects of development
institutionalism
real life application
romanian orphans has led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions for example orphanages now avoid having large numbers of caregivers and children
the romanian orphanages were not typical
the conditions were so bad that results cannot be applied to understanding the impact of better quality institutional care
for example romanian orphanages bas poor standards of care when it came to attachment
fewer extraneous variables than other orphan studies
the orphan studies that happened before involved children who had experiences loss or trauma before - hard to observe the effects of institutionalisation
ethical issues
children were not randomly assigned to conditions researches did not interfere with the adoption process meaning that those adopted could've been more sociable
schaffler and emmersons study on attachment
good external validity
carried out the study in the families own homes and most observation was done by parents
babies would not be aware of the presents of another adult and act differently
limited sample characteristics
60 babies but all the families were from the same district - differers from cultures and across different time periods - results cannot be generalised
conflicting evidence on multiple attachments
research shows that babies must make an attachment to the primary caregiver before developing multiple attachments
in some cultures it is normal to have multiple attachments
role of the father grossman
inconsistent findings on fathers
different researchers are interested in different research questions 1) understanding if fathers as primary attachment figures, 2) understanding of fathers as secondary attachment figures
why aren't children without fathers different?
maccallum and golombok found that children growing up in single or same sex parent families do not develop any differently to those in a hetosexual family - suggests the role of the father is not that important
why don't fathers become primary attachments?
men see being caring and nurturing as the womens role and therefore do not conform to that behaviour
oestrogen creates higher levels of nurture and therefore women are more biologically pre disposed to being the primary attachment figure
cultural variations in attachment
large samples
this is a strength as having a large sample can increase the internal validity by reducing the anomalous results
samples tend to be unrepresentative of culture
the sample might over represent people living in poverty for example comparisons between countries may have little meaning the particular cultural characteristics of the sample need to be specified
the strange situation lacks validity
kagen suggested that attachment type is more related to temperament that to the relationship with the primary attachment figure