7. Attachment Theory

Question 1

John Bowlby

Answer 1

• Psychoanalyst who studied intense emotional distress of children orphaned during WWII
• Recognized that:
  –> Distress due to separation from parents and not having emotional needs met
  -> Behaviours observed (e.g., crying, clinging, searching) are adaptive responses to separation from an attachment figure

Question 2

Bowlby’s Attachment Theory

Answer 2

• Children and their primary caregiver are biologically predisposed to develop a deep emotional bond (attachment)
• This bond forms the foundation for a child’s sense of security and thus shapes their emotional and social development
• Quality of child’s attachments are highly dependent on their experiences with caregiver

Question 3

Features of Attachment System

Answer 3

1. Secure base
   - Caregiver provides a child with a sense of security from which they can explore the environment
   - Cannot explore the environment if attachment system is activated
2. Proximity maintenance and seeking
   - Children are biologically motivated to stay close to caregiver
3. Separation distress
   - Children become distressed when separated from caregiver or when there is a threat in the environment
   - Activates attachment system, motivating child to seek proximity to caregiver
   –> E.g. Looking for caregiver, seeking physical proximity, crying, clinging
4. Safe haven
   - Caregiver helps manage arousal through co-regulation
   - Once proximity and reassurance have been achieved, attachment system deactivates

Question 4

Mary Ainsworth

Answer 4

• Provided empirical evidence of attachment theory by developing the Strange Situation procedure
  –> Paradigm designed to systematically assess children’s attachment to a specific caregiver

Question 5

Attachment Styles

Answer 5

• Secure: 60%; Child uses the parent as secure base, is distressed at separation, seeks the parent at reunion and is easily soothed
• Avoidant: 15%; Readily separates to explore, avoids or ignores the parent when they return after separation, and has no preference for the parent to the stranger
• Resistant: 10%; Clingy, does not separate to explore; wary of the stranger even when the parent is present, extremely distressed upon separation, but difficult to soothe once the parent comes back or demonstrates anger at the parent
• Disorganized: Often freezes and dissociates, lack of consistency in behaviour towards parent, demonstrates contradictory responses, e.g., seem to want to approach caregiver but then withdraws and shows fear, generally fearful of the parent

Question 6

Legacy of the Strange Situation

Answer 6

• Attachment styles replicated in several studies
• Attachment styles are universal across cultures with approximately the same frequencies
• Remains standard measure of children’s attachment style
• Attachment styles in Strange Situation strongly correlated with attachment behaviour at home

Question 7

Development of Attachment

Answer 7

• Pre-attachment phase: birth –6 weeks
  –> Infant display innate behaviours that elicit care from caregivers (e.g. crying, cooing)
  –> Do not show a clear preference for a specific caregiver, accept care from multiple adults
• Attachment-in-the-making phase: 6 weeks –6 months
  –> Start to distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar people, preferring to receive care from a familiar person, but infants still open to care from strangers
  –> Don’t show separation distress when separated from a parent
• Clear-cut attachment phase: 6 months –18-24 months
  –> Infants display clear attachment behaviours and a preference for a primary caregiver
  –> Separation distress is evident and fear of strangers emerges
• Formation of reciprocal relationships: 24 months +
  –> Interested in creating bonds with others that are not their primary attachment figure
  –> Are better able to tolerate distress that comes with separation

Question 8

Implications

Answer 8

• A baby’s age influences their attachment behaviours
• Attachment seems to follow somewhat of a “sensitive period”
  –> E.g. Evidence from Romanian orphanage

Question 9

The Case of Romanian Orphanages

Answer 9

• During the Cold War, many Romanian orphanages were characterized by profound neglect
  –> Children in these orphanages were unable to form a primary attachment relationship
• The extent of negative effects of these experiences depended on how long children had spent in the orphanage
  –> If adopted after 6 months, were much more likely to show profound, lasting cognitive, emotional, and social problems
  –> If adopted before 6 months, more likely to show typical development
• Suggests that 0-6 months is the sensitive period for the development of attachment

Question 10

Parents of Securely Attached Children

Answer 10

• Parents’ behaviour:
  –> Consistently available and responds promptly to infant’s cues (dependable)
  –> Generally supportive/sensitive reactions to child
  –> Engages in frequent positive exchanges with the child
• Child learns that:
  –> Proximity seeking is a good strategy to soothe distress
  –> Can rely on the caregiver for comfort

Question 11

Parents of Avoidantly Attached Children

Answer 11

• Parents’ behaviour:
  –> Unavailable and insensitive to the child’s cues
  –> Tends to ignore, dismiss, reject, or criticize
• Child learns that:
  –> Proximity seeking is not a good strategy to soothe distress
  –> “Deactivates” attachment system
  
  • Avoid proximity of caregiver when distressed
    *Cope with distress by hiding it or avoiding situations that elicit distress
  • BUT biological signs of stress when separated from caregiver

Question 12

Parents of Resistantly Attached Children

Answer 12

• Parents’ behaviour:
  –> Response to child’s distress is inconsistent and unpredictable
  –> Often anxious or overwhelmed with caregiving
• Child learns that:
  –> Proximity is sometimes a good strategy to soothe distress
  –> “Hyperactivates” attachment system
  *Hypervigilance to threat
  *Cope with distress by heightening it
  
  • Crying louder, throwing a tantrum, clinging

Question 13

Parents of Children with Disorganized Attachment

Answer 13

• Parents’ behaviour:
  –> Confuses or frightens child
  –> Correlated with harsh, abusive, or neglectful parenting
  –> Often struggle with severe mental health issues
• Child learns that:
  –> Proximity seeking often results in feeling scared
  –> Caregiver is extremely unpredictable and cannot be trusted
  –> Isn’t learning a lot about how to regulate emotions

Question 14

Temperament and Genetics

Answer 14

• Temperament influences attachment behaviours
  –> E.g. Proneness-to-distress is positively associated with degree of distress during separations
• Temperament also influences the degree of responsiveness from a caregiver
  –> E.g., very fussy babies that are difficult to soothe may make a caregiver feel helpless and be less responsive to the baby’s needs
• No evidence that specific genes are related to attachment styles
• BUT evidence for differential susceptibility

Question 15

Differential Susceptibility Hypothesis

Answer 15

• Some children are temperamentally, highly sensitive to both negative AND positive environmental conditions
  –> “sensitive” temperament+ negative parenting experiences = negative outcomes
  –> “sensitive” temperament + positive parenting experiences = positive outcomes

Question 16

E.g. Negativity and Childcare

Answer 16

• Children with more difficult/negative temperaments have:
  –> More behavioural problems if raised with low quality childcare
  –> BUT have the lowest levels of behavioural problems if raised with high quality childcare

Question 17

Differential Susceptibility and Attachment

Answer 17

• Study: Conducted in Ukrainian preschoolers
• Examined relationship between:
  –> Attachment
  –> Caregiving environment
  *Raised in orphanage or with family
• Variations in serotonin transporter gene
  –> S allele (vs. L allele) associated with greater reactivity to stress
  *Biological marker of greater sensitivity to environment
• Results: Children with at least one S allele (vs. 2 L alleles) showed:
  –> More attachment disorganization if raised in institution
  –> BUT less attachment disorganization if raised with family
• Suggests that genes related to environmental sensitivity and parenting work together to affect vulnerability to insecure attachment

Question 18

Implications of Differential Susceptibility

Answer 18

• Caregiving experiences and temperament jointly shape a child’s attachment and behavioural outcomes
• While all kids benefit most from sensitive parenting, it is particularly important for children that are more temperamentally sensitive to their environment (orchids)

Question 19

Benefits of Secure Attachment

Answer 19

• Children that are securely attached vs. insecurely attached:
  –> Are more emotionally expressive (in appropriate ways)
  –> Experience more positive emotion
  –> Are less anxious and depressed
  –> Are less likely to have behavioural problems, like aggression and delinquency
  –> Have closer relationships with peers
  –> Show more empathy and helping behaviour
  –> Are more socially competent in general
  –> Do better in school
  –> Have more positive romantic experiences in adolescence and adulthood

Question 20

One Secure Attachment is Enough

Answer 20

• Having at least one secure attachment seems to buffer against the negative effects of insecure attachment
  –> Children with insecure attachment to both parents had more behaviour problems than children with insecure attachment to just one pare

Question 21

Internal Working Models

Answer 21

• Mental representations of the self, of attachment figures, and of relationships in general
• Constructed as a result of experiences with caregivers
• Once constructed,
  –> Act as a filter through which interactions with the caregiver and other attachment figures are interpreted
  –> Guide expectations and behaviours in relationships throughout life

Question 22

Attachment from Infancy to Adulthood

Answer 22

• Do caregiving experiences in childhood actually predict adult attachment style?
• Method: Longitudinal study of 707 participants from childhood to age 18
  –> Assessed quality of caregiving experiences at various points in childhood:
  *Maternal sensitivity
  *Maternal depression
  *Father absence
  –> Assessed adult attachment style at age 18
• Results: Less supportive parenting and family instability predicted attachment insecurity in adulthood
• Avoidance at age 18 predicted by:
  –> Lower maternal sensitivity
  –> Not consistently living with father
• Anxiety at age 18 predicted by:
  –> Higher maternal depression
• Evidence that there’s an association between childhood caregiving experiences and attachment in adulthood

Question 23

Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD)

Answer 23

• Longitudinal study conducted across 10 cities in the USA examining the effects of childcare on attachment
  –> Studied 1364 children from birth to adolescence
  –> Measured:
  *Childcare setup
  *Children’s attachment to mother using Strange Situation
  *Quality of mother’s interactions with children
  *Children’s social behaviour and cognitive development

Question 24

Results of the SECCYD

Answer 24

• Attending childcare had no effect on attachment security
  –> 15-month olds in childcare were just as likely to be securely attached to their mothers as children not in childcare
• Maternal support/sensitivity was the strongest predictor of children’s attachment security
• Quality of childcare only had an effect on attachment security if child experienced low maternal sensitivity
  –> Low maternal sensitivity + poor quality childcare = less secure
  –> Low maternal sensitivity + high quality childcare = more secure

Question 25

Implications

Answer 25

• Childcare does not undermine parent-child attachment security
• Childcare can compensate for negative parenting experiences at home by promoting attachment security