PSYCHOLOGY

1. UNIT 2: MEMORY

1.1. Short and long term memory

1.1.1. Capacity

1.1.1.1. STM- digit span is 9.3; Miller 7 plus or minus 2

1.1.1.2. Miller's findings not replicated, might be less

1.1.1.3. Size of chunk matters

1.1.1.4. LTM- unlimited

1.1.2. Duration

1.1.2.1. STM- Petersons, less than 18 seconds, verbal rehersal pprevented

1.1.2.2. LT- Unlimited, Bahrick et al. yearbook study

1.1.2.3. Testing STM was artificial

1.1.2.4. Results from Pertesons may be due to displacement not decay

1.1.3. Coding

1.1.3.1. STM- Coded acoustically, proven by Baddeley's word list

1.1.3.2. LTM coded semantically proven by Baddeley's word lists.

1.1.3.3. LTM might not be totally semantic

1.1.3.4. Baddeley may not have been testing LTM

1.2. The multi store model (MSM)- An explanation of memoory based on 3 seperate stores, and how information is transferred between these stores.

1.2.1. stimuli-->SM-(attention)-->STM-(maintenance rehearsal)-> LTM NB- Maintenance rehearsal loop, retrieval

1.2.2. Brain scan shows that LTM & STM are separate

1.2.3. Some case studies (eg HM) support, but idiographic

1.2.4. Too simple

1.3. Working memory model

1.3.1. Central executive- allocates brain's resources to slave systems

1.3.2. Phonological loop- Phonological store (holds words you hear) and articulatory process (loops words seen or heard)

1.3.3. Visuo-spatial sketchpad- Visual cache (stores info about visual items) and inner scribe (stores spatial info about items)

1.3.4. Episodic buffer- General store, takes info to LTM

1.3.5. Shows active processing

1.3.6. Explains dual- task performance

1.3.7. CE is very vague, same as attention

1.4. Types of LTM

1.4.1. Episodic- personal memories of events.

1.4.2. Procedural- memory about how to do things, some automatic

1.4.3. Semantic- shared memory for facts and knowledge. Starts as episodic

1.4.4. Distinction between types of LTM supported by brain scans

1.4.5. Problem with evidence from brain damage patients, shows correlation but not casual relationship

1.4.6. Hard to distinguish between semantic and episodic

1.5. Explanations for forgetting: Interference- An explanation for forgetting in terms of one memory disrupting the ability to recall another (common with similar memories)

1.5.1. Proactive interference- Past learning interferes with current attempts to learn something

1.5.2. Retroactive interference- Current attempts to learn something interfere with past learning

1.5.3. Research is artificial

1.5.4. Only explains forgetting in some situations

1.6. Explanations for rorgetting: retrieval failure- An explanation for forgetting based on the idea that the issue relates to being able to retrieve a memory that is available but not accessible

1.6.1. Encoding specificity principle said memory is best when information present at encoding is present at retrieval

1.6.2. Context dependent forgetting, is forgetting due to a lack of environmental cues

1.6.3. State dependent forgetting is forgetting due to a lack of state cues (suck as mental state or drunk/sober)

1.6.4. A lot of research support, high ecological validity

1.6.5. Fails to explain interference effects

1.7. Accuracy of EWT

1.7.1. Misleading information- Supplying information that may lead a witness' memory of a crime to be altered

1.7.1.1. Leading questions- a question that either by its dorm or content, suggests to the witness what answer is desired or leads him or her to a desired answer.

1.7.1.1.1. Loftus and Palmer (1974): P1- 45 students shown 7 films of car crash then given a questionnaire to descibe what happened. Critical question was how fast were the cars going when they (hit, smashed, collided, bumped,contacted) each other. F1- greatest speed for smashed, lowest for contacted. P2- Ppps divided into 3 groups (smashed, hit, control), then asked if they saw any glass (there was none). F2- More people said yes in smashed group than in hit and control.

1.7.1.2. Post event discussion- a conversation between co-witnesses or an interviewer and an eyewitness after a crime has taken place which may contaminate a witness' memory for an event

1.7.1.2.1. Conformity effects and repeat interviewing

1.7.1.3. EWT applied to justice system, warn system of faults so innocent aren't convicted.

1.7.1.4. Individual differences of eyewitnesses.

1.7.2. Anxiety- an unpleasant emotional state that is often accompanied by increased heart rate and rapid breathing (physiological arusal)

1.7.2.1. Negative effects of anxiety

1.7.2.1.1. Johnson and Scott (1976)- weapon focus effect found that when a weapon was involved in a crime, recollection of criminal's face is impaired

1.7.2.2. Positive effects of anxiety

1.7.2.2.1. Increase accuracy due to state dependent cues

1.7.2.3. In a meta analysis on the effects of anxiety half showed positive effects. Explained by Yerkes Dodson effect which claims performance is best at medium anxiety and worst at high and low

1.7.2.4. Weapon focus effect may be due to surprise not anxiety ( Pickel. 1998, thief carrying raw chicken, wallet, gun or scissors)

1.7.2.5. Violence of crime may affect accuracy of recall (more violent is more accurate)

1.8. Improving EWT: Cognitive interview- A police technique for interviewing witnesses to a crime.

1.8.1. 1. Mental reinstatement of original context

1.8.1.1. Makes memories accessible

1.8.2. 2. Report everything

1.8.2.1. Something insignificant could trigger other memories or add to a big picture

1.8.3. 3. Change order

1.8.3.1. Reduce schema

1.8.4. Change perspective

1.8.4.1. Reduce schema

1.8.5. A lot of time and training needed to implement, so use isn't widespread

1.8.6. Individual differences, more effective with youths as older people less likely to report everything.

2. UNIT 4: PSYCHOPATHOLOGY

2.1. Definitions of abnormality

2.1.1. Statistical Infrequency

2.1.1.1. Abnormality refers to extremely rare behaviours found in few people

2.1.1.1.1. Some abnormal behaviours are desirable

2.1.1.1.2. Cut off point is subjective

2.1.2. Deviation from social norms

2.1.2.1. Abnormality refers to deviation from unstated social rules about behaviour

2.1.2.1.1. Defiance is related to context and degree

2.1.2.1.2. Cultural relativism included, depends on culture

2.1.3. Failure to function adequately

2.1.3.1. Abnormality is not having the ability to go about with daily life without causing distress to themselves or others

2.1.3.1.1. Subjective to views of observer

2.1.3.1.2. Dysfunctional behaviour can be functional and not noticeable

2.1.4. Deviation from ideal mental helth

2.1.4.1. Anything that isn't classed as ideal mental health (outlined by Jahoda). Eg: positive self attitude, autonomy, accurate perception of relity

2.1.4.1.1. Unrealistic criteria

2.1.4.1.2. Focuses on positives, humanistic approach

2.2. Mental disorders

2.2.1. PHOBIAS- High levels of anxiety in response to certain stimuli

2.2.1.1. Emotional characteristics: Unreasonable fear, unreasonable amounts of anxiety in presence of phobia

2.2.1.2. Behavioral: Avoidance affects routine, freeze or faint

2.2.1.3. Cognitive: Irrational thinking but recognises that their fear is irrational

2.2.2. DEPRESSION- Mood disorder where an individual feels sad etc

2.2.2.1. Emotional: Feeling sad and empty, loss of interest in normal activities, anger, hopelessness or low self esteem

2.2.2.2. Behavioural: Change in activity, sleep and appetite

2.2.2.3. Cognitive: Negative thoughts and negative self concept, guilt

2.2.3. OCD- Anxiety disorder due to presence of obsessions and compulsions

2.2.3.1. Emotional: Obsessions and compulsions lead to anxiety and distress, they know behaviour is excessive and feel embarassed, maybe feeling dirty

2.2.3.2. Cognitive: Obsessions as recurrent intrusive thoughts or impulses which are innapropiate but uncontrollable

2.2.3.3. Behaviour: Compulsive behaviour temporarily reduces anxiety from obsessions. They are repeated, excessive and uncontrolled and people think something bad will happen if they don't perform these 'rituals'.

2.3. Behavioural explanation of phobias

2.3.1. 2 step proccess

2.3.1.1. Classical conditioning associates NS with UCS

2.3.1.2. Operant conditioning as avoidance leads to negative reinforcement

2.3.2. Little albert taught to be afraid of a white rat

2.3.3. Social learning- we can learn to be afraid through modelling

2.3.4. Aren't always developed this way, might be genetic vulnerability

2.3.5. Social learning theory supported by Bandura

2.3.6. Theory of preparedness to make associations

2.4. Behavioural treatment of phobias

2.4.1. FLOODING- Exposes client to extreme form of phobic stimulus under relaxed conditions till anxiety reaction is extinguished

2.4.1.1. Based on the idea that fear responses have a time limit

2.4.1.2. Effective and fast

2.4.1.3. Can cause a lot of distress and ruins the whole thing if they quit

2.4.2. SYSTEMATIC DESENSITISATION- Client is taught how to relax then gradually exposed to varying degrees of phobia (desensitisation hierarchy) under relaxed conditions till anxiety is extinguished

2.4.2.1. To teach new associations to phobic stimuli (Counterconditioning)

2.4.2.2. Idea that you can't be relaxed and afraid at the same time

2.4.2.3. Not effective for all phobias

2.4.3. Behavioural therapies are faster than psycho therapies

2.4.4. Don't always work as cause of phobia has to be adressed

2.5. Cognitive explanation of Depression

2.5.1. Ellis' ABC Model

2.5.1.1. Irrational beliefs such as I must do well or i am worthless

2.5.1.1.1. Holding these beliefs leads to dissapointment or depression

2.5.1.2. A cognitive approach to explaining mental disorders, focusing on the effect of irrational beliefs on emotions

2.5.2. Beck's negative triad

2.5.2.1. A cognitive approach to explaining depression focusing on how negative schema lead to depression

2.5.2.1.1. Shema- cognitive framework which helps organise and interpret info in the brain and make sense of new info

2.5.2.1.2. Negative schemas lead to systematic cognitive biases in thinking

2.5.3. Which comes first, depression or negative thoughts?

2.5.4. Blames client, doesn't consider situational factors

2.5.5. Applied to CBT

2.6. Cognitive treatment of depression

2.6.1. CONGNITIVE BEHAVIOURAL THERAPY

2.6.1.1. Rational therapy first introduced by Ellis and extended his model to ABCDEF

2.6.1.1.1. D- Disputing irrational thoughts and beliefs

2.6.1.1.2. E- Effects of disputing/ Effective attitude to life

2.6.1.1.3. F- (new) Feelings produced

2.6.1.2. Behavioural activation so they enjoy activities they used to like

2.6.1.3. Unconditional positive regard

2.6.2. Effectiveness limited by individual differences

2.6.3. Drug treatment helps and requires less effort

2.6.4. Ellis found 97% success of REBT after 27 sessions

2.7. Biological explanation of OCS

2.7.1. Genetics

2.7.1.1. COMT gene which regulates production of dopamine. A type which leads to lower gene activity and higher dopamine levels is found in people with OCD

2.7.1.2. SERT lowers serotonin levels. Mutation of this gene seen in OCD sufferers

2.7.1.3. Diathesis stress suggests genes lead to vulnerability but other stressors have an effect

2.7.2. Neural

2.7.2.1. Abnormally high dopamine levels and low serotonin levels in OCD sufferers

2.7.2.2. Abnormal brain circuits where caudate nucleus is damaged and can't suppresses signals from OFC to thalamus which leads to worrying. Thalamus then sends signals to OFC which leads to worrying circuit.

2.7.3. Evidence from family and twin studies don't find 100% concordence rate

2.7.4. Genes in OCD come from people who also suffer from other things, so not one specific unique gene

2.8. Biological treatment of OCD

2.8.1. Antidepressanst (SSRIs)

2.8.1.1. Increase serotonin levels by blocking reuptake at synapse

2.8.2. Antidepressants (Tricyclics)

2.8.2.1. Blocks transporter mechanism that reabsorbs serotonin and noradrenaline in presynaptic neuron

2.8.2.1.1. Target more than 1 neurotransmitter but have side effects, used when SSRIs ineffective

2.8.3. Anti anxiety drugs

2.8.3.1. BZs slow activity of CNS by increasing activity of GABA neurotransmitter which quietens neuron

2.8.3.1.1. GABA attaches to GABA receptors on cell membrane of postsynaptic neuron which increases flow of chlorine ions. Makes the neuron harder to be stimulated by other neurotransmitters.

2.8.4. D-cycloserine in conjunction with psychotherapy can be useful

2.8.4.1. Enhanced GABA transmission

2.8.5. Drugs require less effort and are cheaper than CBT

2.8.6. Side effect of drugs might make patient stop taking

2.8.7. Not a lasting cure

3. UNIT 1: SOCIAL INFLUENCE

3.1. Conformity

3.1.1. Types (Kelman, 1958)

3.1.1.1. Compliance- individual accepts influence to achieve favourable reaction

3.1.1.2. Internalisation- Individual accepts influence because context of attitude or behaviour proposed is consistent with their own value system

3.1.1.3. Identification- Individual adopts attitude or behaviour to be associated with a group or idea

3.1.1.4. Hard to distinguish between compliance and internalisation

3.1.2. Explanations

3.1.2.1. Normative Social Influence- Result of a desire gain approval or avoid social dissaproval

3.1.2.2. Informational Social Influence- Results of a desire to be right

3.1.2.3. NSI may not be detected

3.1.3. Variables affecting conformity

3.1.3.1. Asch (1956) P-123 males. Asked to look at lines and look at lines of different lengths. Call out which line was the same as standard. Group of confederates, real pps answered second to last. 12 critical trials, F- 33% conformity rate. 1/4 never conformed, 1/2 conformed at least once . In control mistakes were only made 1% of the time.

3.1.3.1.1. Study lacks historical validity, increased conformity might be due to McCarthyism

3.1.3.1.2. Confederates might not be convincing

3.1.3.1.3. Cultural differences in conformity

3.1.3.2. Group size- Conformity peaks at majority size of 3

3.1.3.3. Unanimity of majority- In Asch study when unanimity was broken conformity reduced to 5.5%

3.1.3.4. Difficulty of task- Harder task increases conformity due to ISI

3.2. Conformity to social roles

3.2.1. Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1973) P-Mock prison set up, 24 men deemed physically and mentally stable used. Randomly assigned prisoner or guard. Prisoners unexpectedly arrested. Guards given uniform. Planned to last 2 weeks. Zimbardo superintendent. F- Guards became increasingly tyrannical, pps forgot it was not real and conformed to roles of prisoner and guard. Study terminated after 6 days, due to extreme responses of pps.

3.2.1.1. Conformity might be due to demand charcteristics

3.2.1.2. Unethical study

3.2.1.3. Relevalnce to Abu Ghraib

3.2.2. BBC prison study (Reicher and Hasalam, 2006) P- 15 male pps, randomly assigned role guard or prisoner, meant to run for 8 days. F- Pps did not conform as expected, prisoners worked together to defy authority and guards didn't impose authority

3.3. Situational variables affecting obedience

3.3.1. Milgram (1963) P- 40 pps told they were looking at how punishment affects learning. Instructed by researcher using prods to give increasingly strong shocks to learner when answers are wrong (till lethal 450V). Tape of learner screaming and pounding the wall played at 300V. F- 65% of pps continued to 450V. All pps went to 300V.

3.3.2. Proximity- Obidience fell to 40% when learner and pp were in the same room

3.3.3. Location- Obedience fell to 48% in run down office, 21% when orders given over phone

3.3.4. Uniform

3.3.5. Location might have little effect because stilled backed by institution of science

3.3.6. Lacks internal validity, some pps didin't belive the shocks

3.3.7. Study in 2009 found almost identical result, shows historical validity

3.4. Agentic state and legitimacy of authority

3.4.1. Agentic state- A person sees him or herself as an agent for carrying out a person's wishes

3.4.1.1. Agentic shift occurs whereby peop;le shift responsibility to a figure of authority so do not accept blame so are guilt free. Social etiquette keeps them in the agentic state

3.4.2. Legitimacy of authority

3.4.2.1. Legitimate authority is needed for an agentic shift. People accept definitions of a situation from a legitimate authority. Authority must be backed by an institution

3.4.3. Doctors at Auschwitz can't be explained by agentic shift as change was gradual ad irreversible

3.4.4. Agentic state might be explained by a loss of personal control, thus increase acceptance of external sources

3.5. The authoritarian personality

3.5.1. Elms and Milgram (1966) P- follow up study using pps from Milgram's experiment. 20 obedient, 20 defiant. Assessed by MMPI scale and F scale. F- higher authoritarianism among obedient.

3.5.2. F scale made in california in 1947 as a measure of authoritarian traits

3.5.2.1. Authoritarian people were rigid thinkers and adhered strictly to sociial rules. Often their parents used authoritarian parenting styles.

3.5.3. Right wing authoritarianism- a cluster of personality variables associated with a right wing attitude to life

3.5.3.1. Have characteristics that predispose them to obedience. Correlation between RWA scores and level people were willing to shock

3.5.4. Less educated people more authoritarian

3.5.5. Difference in characteristics of obedient pps and authoritarians

3.6. Resistance to social influence

3.6.1. Social support- the perception that an individual has assistance available from otherpeople, and that they are part of a supportive network

3.6.1.1. Supported in Asch's test on the effect of unanimity

3.6.1.2. Effect of position of person providing social support

3.6.1.3. Real life study has results consistent with lab based

3.6.2. Locus of control- People differ in their beliefs about whether the outcomes of their actions are dependent on what they do (internal LOC) or on events outside their personal control (external LOC)

3.6.2.1. Internals better able to resist social influence

3.6.2.2. Related to NSI not ISI

3.6.2.3. Found that there is a positive correlation between LOC and forms of social influence, with externals being easily persuaded

3.7. Minority influence- A form of social influence where members of the majority groups change their beliefs or behaviours as a result of their exposure to a persuasive minority.

3.7.1. Minority must be consistent, flexible and commited (often shown by suffering)

3.7.2. Moscovici et al (1969) found that a consistent minority had an effect of 8% on the majority compared to an inconsistent minority which had an effect of 1%

3.7.3. Role of flexibility proven in simulated jury situation

3.7.4. Suggests that minority influence opens minds, puts majority's view under scrutiny

3.7.5. Message of minority might not be processed more so is less influential

3.8. Social influence process in social change

3.8.1. Social change through minority influence

3.8.1.1. 1. Drawing attention to an issue 2. Cognitive conflict 3. Consistency in position 4. The augmentation principle 5. Snowball effect

3.8.1.2. Very gradual

3.8.1.3. Being seen as deviant limits influence

3.8.2. Social change through majority influence (conformity)

3.8.2.1. People conform to norm, but there is often a difference between perceived norm and actual norm, called a misperception. Misperception can be corrected by social norms intervention. eg: most of us don't drink

3.8.2.2. Intervention also affect those who's behaviour is more desirable than norm

4. UNIT 3: ATTACHMENT

4.1. Caregiver-infant interactions

4.1.1. Attachment- A stong emotional bond between two people that is reciprocal and enduring

4.1.2. Interactional synchrony: Interaction whereby infant mirrors actions and behaviours of caregiver

4.1.2.1. Meltzoff and Moore studied imitation of mouth opening, termination of mouth opening, tongue protrusion and termination of tongue protrusion, in infants. Observers had inter observer reliability of .92.

4.1.2.2. Arguement on whether this is real or pseudo immitation. Murray et al. tested using a video played to infants whereby their mothers weren't responding, led to distress.

4.1.3. Reciprocity: Interaction whereby infant responds to an action with a similar action, similar to turn taking or having a conversation

4.1.4. Problems with testing infants, behaviours tested are fairly common

4.1.5. Failure to replicate, might be due to methodological differences

4.2. Development of attachment

4.2.1. 1.ASOCIAL: birth to 2 months; similar responses to all objects

4.2.2. 2. INDISCRIMINATE: 4 months; show preference of human company, general sociability

4.2.3. 3. DISCRIMINATE: 7 months; show separation anxiety and preference for primary caregiver

4.2.4. 4. MULTIPLE: Soon after formation of primary attachment; secondary relationships form

4.2.5. Role of father: Less likely to be sole primary attachment figure, could be due to biological or social factors. Men might be less sensitive to infant cues. Men often share role of primary attachment.

4.2.6. Biased sample of working class population in 60s used to make conclusions (Schaffer and Emerson)

4.2.7. Monotropy challenged by Rutter who suggests that all attachment figures are equal

4.2.8. Stage theories are inflexible

4.3. Animal studies

4.3.1. Lorenz (1935)- P: half of the goslings eggs hatched with mother, other half hatched with Lorenz, Lorenx marked both groups and watched actions when natural mother present. F- Gosings imprinted on Lorenz, no recognition of natural mother. Critical perioid thought to be first 2 days, thought imprinting was irreversible and also led to sexual imprinting

4.3.1.1. Imprinting might not be permanent

4.3.2. Harlow (1959)- P: Studies 8 rhesus monkey orphans and their reactions to wire and cloth mothers. Half had wire mother feeding. Time spent with mothers recorded. F: All monkeys spent more time with cloth mother, when frightened ran to cloth mother who offered contact comfort. Monkeys developed to be socially and sexually abnormal, also suggested a critical period, of 6 months.

4.3.2.1. Generalising animal studies to human behaviour

4.3.2.2. Effect of confounding variable (mothers faces)

4.4. Learning theory

4.4.1. Believes that all behaviours are learnt

4.4.2. Classical conditioning- Learning through association. A neutral stimulus is constantly paired with an unconditioned stimulus till it takes on the properties of this stimulus and can produce a conditioned response.

4.4.2.1. Food-UCS; Mother-NS Mother paired with food

4.4.3. Operant conditioning- Learning through reinforcement

4.4.4. Social learning theory- Learning through observing others and imitating behaviours that are rewarded.

4.4.5. Based on animal studies: eg skinners rat

4.4.6. Harlow suggests attachment isn't based on food

4.5. Bowlby's monotropic theory

4.5.1. ASMIC

4.5.1.1. Adaptive

4.5.1.2. Social releaser: A social behaviour or characteristic that elicits caregiving

4.5.1.3. Monotropy: Idea that one relationship the infant has with their primary attachment figure is most significant

4.5.1.4. Internal working model: Acts as a blueprint for future expectations of life

4.5.1.5. Continuity hypothesis: Emotionally secure infants become emotionally secure adults

4.5.1.6. Critical period

4.5.2. This is an evolutionary perspective, based on Darwin's theory of evolution

4.5.3. Idea of a sensitive period rather than critical

4.5.4. Minnesota parent-child study evidence of continuity hypothesis

4.6. Ainsworth's Strange Situation

4.6.1. Ainsworth et al (1971,1978) P: infant put in novel environment through 8 episodes to record separation and stranger anxiety, reuinion behaviour and use of parent as secure base. Data collected by observers who record certain behaviour every 15 seconds. F: Secure, insecure avoidant and insecure resistant attachment types identified

4.6.1.1. STAGES P=parent; I= Infant; S=stranger: 1)P+I 2)P+I 3)P+S+I 4)S+I 5) P+I 6)I 7)S+I 8) P+I

4.6.1.2. ATTACHMENT TYPES: SECURE-Willing to explore and uses parent as secure base ,moderate stranger and separation anxiety, enthusiastic at reunion 66%. INSECURE AVOIDANT- Willing to explore, low stranger and separation anxiety, avoids contact at reunion, 22%. INSECURE RESISTANT- Unwilling to explore, very high stranger and separation anxiety, seeks and rejects contact on reunion, 12%.

4.6.2. Insecure disorganised attachment type later discovered

4.6.3. High reliability and inter-observer reliability

4.7. Cultural variations in attachment

4.7.1. Van IJzendoorn et al. (1988): P: meta analysis of 32 studies of attachment across different countries/cultures to examine inter and intra cultural differences. F: Secure attachment most common in all, with insecure-avoidant as second except in Israel and Japan. C: Secure attachment best for normal social development

4.7.1.1. Country% Secure% Avoidant% Resistant West Germany 57 35 8 Great Britain 75 22 3 Netherlands 67 26 7 Sweden 74 22 4 Israel 64 7 29 Japan 68 5 27 China 50 25 25 USA 65 21 14 Mean 65 21 14

4.7.1.1.1. Difference between rural and urban Japan; Germans encourage independence; Israel and Japan collectivist cultures

4.7.2. Similarities might be due to mass media and globalization, not biology

4.7.3. Indeginous theories of attachment, but core principles such as sensitvity

4.7.4. Imposed etic

4.8. Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory

4.8.1. Deprivation: loss of emotional care normally provided by primary caregiver

4.8.2. Emphasises maternal care and idea of a critical period

4.8.3. Bowlby's 44 thieves study (1944) P: 88 children were analysed, half were delinquents refered to as thieves, the rest were a control group. F: Some thieves (14) were affectionless psychopaths and 86% of these had frequent separations from their mother before the age of 2. Only 17% of control experienced frequent separation

4.8.3.1. Emotional separation can also lead to deprivation, study with depresssed mothers

4.8.3.2. Rutter criticised bowlby for not differentiating between deprivation and privation

4.9. Effects of institutionalisation

4.9.1. Institutionalisation- the effects of institutional care

4.9.2. Rutter and Sonuga-Barke (2010): P: 165 Romanian children, 111 adopted before the age of 2, 54 more before 4. Adoptees tested at 4,6,11, 15 and compared to a control group of british adopted before 6 months. F: At time of adoption Romanians lagged behind british counterparts, but by 4 most had caught up, especially those adopted by 6 months. Some of those who had been in the institution for over 6 months showed disinhibited attachment.

4.9.3. OTHER STUDIES: Le Mare and Audet (2006) did a longitudinal study of 36 romanian orphans adopted in Canada; physically smaller at 4.5 years but same by 10 . Zeanah et al. (2005) studied 136 romanian orphans who spent 90% of their life in an institution to control of Romanian children who didn't. Showed disinhibited attachment.

4.9.4. Effects: Physical underdevelopment, intellectual underfunctioning, disinhibited attachment, poor parenting.

4.9.5. Individual differences

4.9.6. Value of longitudinal studies

4.10. Influence of early attachment

4.10.1. Internal working model: a mental model of the world which enables individuals to predict and control their environment. Relates to a persons expectations about relationships

4.10.2. Hazan and Shaver (1987): P: Love quiz made which asked questions about current and past attachment history and attitudes towards love. 620 responses. F: Prevalence of attachment styles similar to infancy. Positive correlation between attachment style and love experiences. Relation between concept of love and attachment style (securely attached had more positive internal working model)

4.10.3. Behaviours influenced by internal working model: Poor parenting, romantic relationships, mental health

4.10.4. Research is correlational not experimental

4.10.5. Low correlations

4.10.6. Overly determinist