# data[].attributes.body
Target Population

# data[].attributes.body
Target Population: Men and women who are parents
Contextual Factor: If they were the primary caregiver to their child
Second Factor: Hours worked
Overview of how population/factor will be integrated into the LISSA procedure: No change as it's a validated and reliable measure. Will have an additional questionnaire about hours worked in an average week.
Groups: Father as primary caregiver, mother as primary caregiver, fathers not primary caregivers, mothers not primary caregivers
Predicted Findings: The primary caregiver will be more sensitive to the child's needs. There will be a negative correlation between hours worked and sensitivity to the child in both men and women.

# data[].attributes.body
Target population:

First time single mothers within 30-35 years old with an infant from England (e.g. Birmingham).

Individual or contextual factor:

Emotional intelligence

Overview of how population/factor will be integrated into the LISSA procedure: e.g., replace the mood measure with a measure of empathy, etc.

Replace the mood measure with Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence test (MSCEIT).

Experimental Group:

-             MSCEIT and caregiver sensitivity test before and after the intervention.

Control Group:

-             MSCEIT and caregiver sensitivity test twice (no intervention).

Predicted findings:

Higher emotional intelligence, improves caregiver sensitivity which can in turn it can predict attachment security.

# data[].attributes.body
- 

1 comment
Avatar of 
Anonymous 26m
Stregths
Your avatar

# data[].attributes.body
Target population:

Young adults (18-25)

Individual or contextual factor:

Contextual: time spent with simulator
2 groups:
30 mins with child
A few hours with child

Overview of how population/factor will be integrated into the LISSA procedure: e.g., replace the mood measure with a measure of empathy, etc.

Theory of mind – understanding another person so wanted to see if emotional intelligence
Individual factor: Emotional intelligence – questionnaire à look for correlation

Predicted findings:
Is the effect of time spent with simulator mediated by emotional intelligence?
Higher emotional intelligence à more sensitive to child’s needs
As time increases -->  more bored / distracted or more responsive?

Mediated by emotional intelligence
More EI --> more responsive
Lower EI --> more boredom / distracted

# data[].attributes.body
Target population: Undergraduate students

Individual factors: Anxiety or depression scores using Beck's Inventory

Overview of how population/factor will be integrated into the LISSA procedure: Beck's Anxiety or Depression Inventory to replace mood measure in previous study. We must take into consideration and are aware of ethical problems.
We will keep Ainsworth's sensitivity scale and other main aspects of previous study (2 evenings and 30 min lab session)

Predicted findings: Depression and Anxiety are likely to be correlated with low levels of care/sensitivity and high levels of over protection (which could be negative)

Study: Liss, M., Timmel, L., Baxley, K., & Killingsworth, P. (2005). Sensory processing sensitivity and its relation to parental bonding, anxiety, and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(8), 1429-1439. 10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.007

# data[].attributes.body
Design an experimental study using LISSA to examine individual or contextual differences in caregiver sensitivity.

Ask people if they want to partake in a parenting course, then they take questionaire and participants who are insecurely attached have intervention training on how to be sensitive towards infant. See if there is difference in sensitivity before and after intervention.

Repeated measures design

Individual factor = whether securely attached

Measure = sensitivity measured with LISSA dolls

Predicted findings = participants would show higher levels of sensitivity after intervention compared with before.

# data[].attributes.body
1.       What are the (a) strengths and (b) weaknesses of LISSA for assessing caregiver sensitivity?

Strengths –

-          Less time consuming

-          Influence of the about of time of when you are viewing them.

-          High intercoder reliability.

-          The scale is descriptive.
Weaknesses –

-          Scale is very subjective.

-          Could not compare sensitivity in interaction with the infant simulator to observed sensitivity with the own infant.

-          Lacks external validity.

# data[].attributes.body
6-not fully engaged but responsive and interested when she needed to be. Underlying affection and respect could be seen.

Discuss in your groups:

1.       What are the (a) strengths and (b) weaknesses of LISSA for assessing caregiver sensitivity?

·         Weakness- low ecological validity

·         Strengths- more ethical still face very distressing for baby. More realistic than other simulators real care giving as opposed to taking key out of child to stop them crying.

2.       How might attachment representations influence how participants view the procedure, and might this have affected the way they behaved in the study?

·         If securely attached they may be more sensitive to baby’s cues.

# data[].attributes.body
Target population:

First time mothers because the results can be used for practical application in the real world as opposed to using undergraduates who aren’t likely to have children.

Individual or contextual factor:

In relationship vs single mothers.

Overview of how population/factor will be integrated into the LISSA procedure: e.g., replace the mood measure with a measure of empathy, etc.

We think that being single or in a relationship will cause a difference in sensitivity to the infant’s cues. Both the single mums and the in-relationship mums would interact with the simulated infant.

Predicted findings:

Single mums show more sensitivity to the infant’s cues than those in relationships. This is because those in relationships take turns in tending to the baby, whereas single mums are the sole carer.

# data[].attributes.body
Target population: 
-	Specific sample to avoid other confounding variables such as marital status, gender, etc
-	Mothers of young heterosexual married couple (age 20-30 years)
Individual or contextual factor:
-	 Quasi-experimental
-	Contextual factor – only have one biological child (0-6 months)
Overview of how population/factor will be integrated into the LISSA procedure: e.g., replace the mood measure with a measure of empathy, etc. 
-	Compare mothers of young married couples age 20-30 years old to a control group of heterosexual women aged 20-30 with no children (groups as similar as possible)
Predicted findings: 
-	Hypothesis: predict participants with own biological children will be more responsive according to LISSA than women with no children.

# data[].attributes.body
Target population: female non-mothers, age 20-25 with secure childhood attachments
Factor: whether the participant is sleep deprived or not
Overview of method: The mood measure would be replaced with a sleep deprivation survey. In addition, one group would be asked to only sleep 5 hours out of the 24 immediately before the experimental 30 minutes (but after the two evenings of bonding)
Hypothesis: The group experiencing sleep deprivation will score lower on the sensitivity scale than the group not experiencing sleep deprivation
(consensus score 4)

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:
- standardised way of investigating caregiver behaviour
- less ethical concern
Weaknesses:
- less realistic
- short time span
- lack of consequentiality

Attachment representations:
- insecurely attached participants would find the multi-tasking component than securely attached participants as they're less focused on the child
- securely attached participants may show higher sensitivity as they find it easier to engaged with the LISSA doll

Our study:
Target population - part/ full time weekday workers with no children
Contextual factor: time of the day
Integration into LISSA procedure:
- same procedure across 2 weekends (2 conditions):
- condition 1: 1-5 pm
- condition 2: 11-3 am

Prediction findings: time of day should not act as an interaction between attachment security & quality of caregiving

# data[].attributes.body
test

# data[].attributes.body
Target population:

To be first time parents (family planning) or through the midwifes.

Individual or contextual factor:
Measure the mother’s attachment type to her own mother using a self-report questionnaire (https://www.statisticssolutions.com/adult-attachment-scale-aas/ - Adult attachment scale)

Overview of how population/factor will be integrated into the LISSA procedure: e.g., replace the mood measure with a measure of empathy, etc.

Send it out to everybody, and that we’ll analyse the LISSA data from the self-report computer and make categories for the attachment types and common behaviours.

Predicted findings:

Secure attachments with other parents are more likely to have a secure attachment with their own children. Raise the issue whether insecure individuals are acting genuine as they know they’re insecure?

Even insecure will appear to be secure?

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths and Weaknesses of LISSA
Strengths: perhaps less time consuming, more ethical for infant and more predictable behaviours from infant
Weaknesses: Lacks external validity, social desirability likely to affect behaviour, subjective therefore likely low replicability
Attachment Representations
Bad connetations with the words insecure, social desirability, sensitive subject
Study
Factor: gender of primary caregiver (fathers, mothers, etc.)
Target population: parents/ primary caregivers
Individual factor: gender
Prediction: similar sensitivity in primary caregivers despite gender, perhaps a slight but statistically insignificant difference where mothers are more sensitive, due to carrying the child

# data[].attributes.body
Target population:

All new parents

Individual or contextual factor:

Recruit two populations –

Population one – Mothers who have had their first child in the last 6 months

Population two – Mothers who have had their second child in the last 6 months, their first child being at least two years old

Overview of how population/factor will be integrated into the LISSA procedure: e.g., replace the mood measure with a measure of empathy, etc.

Judge each groups sensitivity to LISSA using the ainsworth maternal sensitivity scale – uses 1-9 scale in;

-        Sensitivity vs insensitivity to signals

-        Cooperation vs interference with ongoing behaviour

-        Acceptance vs rejection of infant’s needs

-        Accessibility vs ignoring

Predicted findings:

We think the results could go either direction

On the one hand, second-child parents may be more sensitive to infant needs as they have had more practice in understanding in responding to infant behaviour.

On the other hands, second-child parents may be less sensitive to infant needs as they may be more confident parents, and so be less worried and constantly attentive towards their infant.

# data[].attributes.body
Target population:

Undergraduate students

Individual or contextual factor:

Contextual factor: Other mothers showing increased or decreased parental sensitivity.

Overview of how population/factor will be integrated into the LISSA procedure: e.g., replace the mood measure with a measure of empathy, etc.

Condition 1 – ppts on their own

Condition 2 – 5 pairs of mothers and robots in a room together – all but one pair are confederates told to be overly sensitive and caring towards robots.

Condition 3 – 5 pairs of mothers and robots in a room together – all but one pair are confederates told to be distant and cold towards robots.

Predicted findings:

The score of parental sensitivity of mothers will differ when surrounded by mothers showing more(C2) or less(C3) parental sensitivity.

# data[].attributes.body
1.     What are the (a) strengths and (b) weaknesses of LISSA for assessing caregiver sensitivity?

weakness:
-  You cannot compare sensitivity in interaction with the infant simulator to observed sensitivity with the parents own infant.

- Using infant simulators to assess sensitivity is not realistic (ecological validity)

strengths:
- it is not intrusive-  do not have to use actual humans.

2.   How might the ‘caregivers’ own attachment representations influence how participants view the procedure, and might this have affected the way they behaved in the study?

-  Social desirability: if they are aware of how they are being scored it will impact how they act towards the baby- e.g. if they are aware they are observed carer may be less likely to go on their phone.

Experiment:

Target population:
20-40 year old mothers with different numbers of children (first time mums compared to mums who have more than one child).

Individual or contextual factor:
how many children the mother has

·Overview of how population/factor will be integrated into the LISSA procedure: e.g., replace the mood measure with a measure of empathy, etc.

we will replace the mood measure with how many children the mother has and how old the children are

Predicted findings: mothers with more children

How amount of children will affect parental sensitivity.

Caregivers with more children may be more sensitive (e.g. because of the more practise they have had)

This variation could be explained by age of the siblings.

Alternatively, the more children a mother has the less sensitive they may be e.g. they may be more tired or they could have more distractions due to having to manage more than one child e.c.t

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 3 : What are the (a) strengths and (b) weaknesses of LISSA for assessing caregiver sensitivity? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 3 : What are the (a) strengths and (b) weaknesses of LISSA for assessing caregiver sensitivity? 

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths
- Doesn't cause distress for actual humans (no psychological damage)
- All babies are the same, with similar needs, therefore the validity is stronger and results are easily comparable
- No relationship between the LISSA and the parent, therefore increased validity as   sensitivity is measured and not just social desirability
- No expectations for the LISSA as they had completely different temperament to own child and therefore what was measured was actually sensitivity and not habit or routine
- They actually measured sensitivity skill and not just the relationship to their own child

Weaknesses
- Might lack ecological validity as not necessarily set in a realistic setting, despite offering reward  for completing other tasks (tasks were not necessarily realistic to a real-life setting)
- Participants knew they were observed, might also reduce ecological validity
- Might act in a certain way for social desirability reasons
- Comparisons could not be made between levels of sensitivity when interacting with your own infant and the simulator (simulators do not have temperaments, real baby might have different needs)
- A high score is not necessarily desirable, because too much sensitivity might backfire in the future and result in undesirable traits or behaviour at an older age
- Do not necessarily know if sensitivity is a skill or a fluid concept (parents with more experience raising children might have more "skill")
- Debateable what sensitivity actually means
- We don't actually know what the babies want because they can't speak

How might attachment representations influence how participants view the procedure, and might this have affected the way they behaved in the study?

- If they got the impression that it's desirable to be very sensitive that might have affected their behaviour

Possible study:
- Look at parents with children of different ages
- Compare those skills to different "aged" dolls with different temperaments (just more variation)
- Be very careful with explaining "sensitivity" and maybe reword it to responsiveness instead and phrase the task more naturally, to not influence their behaviour (e.g. just tell them they are responsible for the baby for x amount of time)
- perhaps in a real-life environment, more distractors (improve ecological validity)
- maybe make it a longitudinal study and check in with parents at different times in their lives