16 marker evaluation

animal studies

-not generalisable to humans

-real life application (early adoption + critical period)= improved qol

-ethical impact (ca lots of benefits)

learning theory

-ignpred impact of contact comfort (harlow)

-goes against other human studies (isabella found is and reciprocity were needed)

-hunter and emerson found sensitivce response was important

=not just food for all

monotropic theory

-mixed evidence (found some attach to multiple people at once)

-support for social releasers through still face experiements

-support for internal working models -bailey 99 mums

strange situation

-good reliability (75% same with test-retest), longitudinal= method is reliable

-high validity as strongly predictive of later relationships= a,b,c are true differences

-cultuyre bound (imposed etic) , doesnt work in japan and can be offensive

cultural investigations

-large sample size=high population validity

-unrepresentative of cultures japan vs tokyo

-biased method of assessment, imposed etuc and based off western standards

maternal deprivation

-investigator effect=lack of control=lower internal validity

-animal studies show evidence (ca=lower iq)

-poor evidence (war orphans and institutionalised)=other reasons for how they are

institutionalisation

-immediate real world application = changed adoption process

-rutter=longitudinal study= more valid to study

-doubts of generalisability as other bad experiences= low external validity

later relationships

-evidence on continuity of attachment type is mixed

-association/correlation doesnt mean causation

-influence of early attachment is probalistic = pessimistic about children

ca= gives chance for therapy and use of free will