explore freely without proximity, seeking/secure base behaviour. No separation anxiety. Don’t require comfort at Reunion

was to look at the proportions of secure insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments. Across a rang of different countries to asses culture variation.

with the caregiver after separation for a short period of time under controlled conditions

3%

4,6,11,15

Rutter

Another sign of becoming attached is to protest at separation from the caregiver

86

Secure half best friendships. Kokkinos resistant likely to bully. Avoiding likely to be victims of bullying.

106

looking at 44 thieves

They extended Bowlby’s idea that later love relationship should be predicted from knowledge of an individuals early attachment style.

strange situation of 32 studies

explore and show proximity seeking/secure base behaviour. moderate separation/stranger anxiety. Require and except to comfort a reunion.

In terms of attachment style 56% classified themselves as securely attached 25% as avoidant and 19% as resistant. Love experiences an attachment towards love. (internal working model.) were related to attachment type

The child and caregiver enter a unfamiliar playroom, The child is encouraged to explore, A stranger comes in and tries to interact with the child, The caregiver leaves the child and stranger together, The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves, The caregiver leaves the child alone, The stranger returns, The caregiver returns, and is reunited with the child

A group of noncriminal adolescence

95 children who spent time in an institution compare to 50 who hadn’t

20-25%

He interviewed teens for signs of affectionless psychopathy (lack of affection/guilt for victims)

14 out of 44 thieves were affectionless psychopaths. 12 out of them 14 experienced prolonged separation., The control group had 2 out of 44 had long separation

affectionless psychopathy (no guilt/strong emotions for others) associated with criminality

that deprivation occurs during the critical period of two years, and if an attachment didn’t form it lead to an emotional and intellectual damage

Families interviewed, if there was a prolonged separation, drawing the critical period

They tested Bobbys hypothesis with their love quiz. This was a quiz of nearly 100 questions published in the Rocky Mounotain news. they received 620 replies to that questionnaire and drew the following conclusions.

secure attachment, insecure avoidant attachment, insecure resistant attachment

this is where the researcher look at a range of previous researches that they have not been involved in them self -secondary data

Attachment Effexor ability to parents. Bailey 99 mothers. Interviews on that attachment assessment with own children similarity.

An infant with a good attachment, will stay fairly close to the caregiver

Ijzendoorn and Krooneberg

A framework of how future relationships should look. Child with a loving attachment will expect the same. Functionally is passed down generations.

Bowlby

to investigate the extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions.

Zeanah

One of the signs of becoming closely attached is a display of anxiety when a stranger approaches

Good attachment enables a child to feel confident to explore using their caregiver as a secure base I.E a point of contact that will make them feel safe.

Strong validity due to its high predictive value. Securely attached babies have highest success in school/adult, romantic relationships insecure, have the worst - Bullying (Kokkinos) and mental health issues (ward) able to explain subsequent future outcomes, Strong reliability. Different observers agreed on the same attachment type. Clear behaviour categories. Bick et al looked at iner-rater, reliability and saw observations agreed, 94%. Classification not depending on who is observing., testing is cultural bound. Children/parents, respond differently. Takahashi said test doesn’t work in Japan as there is rarely any separation meaning they have high levels of separation anxiety. Megan is also scooped themselves us so difficult to observe. Also some children with disorganised attachments.

Unfortunately, many of the studies conducted in this area rely heavily on reproductive data where participants must recall experiences from their childhood. This means that the memories that are record of childhood are unlikely to be completely accurate. We can do the validity of the data limiting obtained, childhood experiences, influencing relationships

74% of control group securely attached, only 19% of in institutionalised , 65% of institutionalised group had a disorganised attachment, 44% of institutionalised had dishabited compare to 20% of control group

Internal working models, Relationships as a parent, Relationships in later, childhood, Romantic relationships as adults

A group of 52 British adoptees

77

Ainsworth

Mixed evidence for continuing of attachment. McCarthy’s study shows 40 women secure = best relationship/avoidance = problems with intimacy and jealousy. However Zimmerman no connection to adolescence relationships. Doesn’t support internal working model., Issues with validity. Interview/questionnaires and retrospective self report methods that are influenced by bias. E.g. Bailey/ Hazen and Shaver , Association does not mean causation. Alt expectations, like temperaments which will influence parenting rather than the past attachments

60-70%

Hazan and Shaver

Found mine every country, secure attachment, what’s the most popular classification. However, the proportion varied from 75% in Britain and 50% in China., In individualist cultures the rates of insecure resistant attachment were the same as found in Ainsworth original study. Put in samples like Japan, China and Israel what is 25% that the attachment type of insecure avoidant was reduced

Hazan and Shaver Love quiz, 59% secure, 25% avoidant and 19% resistant

The Romanian orphan study has had real life applications. Orphans now have a key worker rather than having multiple carers to prevent the formulation of a disinhibited attachment. This enables children to form normal/healthy relationships., The Romanian orphan study hard to Fuat extraneous variables than those are orphans studies. War orphans had trauma/bereavement. Less confounding variables. higher, internal validity, The Romanian orphans were atypical. they had served aspects of care deprived e.g. no intellectual stimulation or formulation of attachments. Unusual situation or variables means it lacks validity.

disinhibited attachment (Rutter - an adaption to life at an orphanage with around 50 different people looking after you)

Delays, intellectual development, meaning, abnormally, low, IQ. Goldfarb found lower IQ is in those who remained in institutions compare to those who are fostered.

165

Close proximity, so explore less. A lot of separation/strange anxiety. Resist concert at Reunion

Wanted to look at the link between affection this psychopathy and criminality