Attachment Flashcards
L4:
What are the learning objectives of Attachment Lecture 1?
- Outline attachment theory applied to childhood including…
> Behavioural systems
> Individual differences - Describe the social-cognitive approach to adult attachment, including:
> Measurement of individual differences
> Attachment schema
> Priming attachment styles - Debate trait vs situation perspectives on attachment
L4:
Outline John Bowlby’s childhood attachment theory
Harlow’s monkeys studies disproved the ‘secondary drive’ theory of love, stating that a child’s bond with their caregiver is not merely a result of the caregiver giving them food, so them associating the caregiver with food. Human infants (along with monkeys) need close emotional bonds (attachments) in order to survive and thrive.
This need for bonds is driven by an innate behavioural system, the ‘attachment behavioural system’, which develops during the first year of life
L4:
What is the ‘secondary drive’ theory of infant attachment?
It states that human babies, as well as animals, form bonds to their caregivers as a result of an association with the provision of food.
L4:
What is the attachment behavioural system?
The innate system driving a creature/ babies need for emotional attachment, develops during the first year of life.
The system operates under the premise that attachment behaviours* are activated under conditions of threat
L4:
Name some childhood attachment behaviours
Crying, following, reaching, hugging etc
Monitoring the accessibility of caregiver
Maintenance of/ increasing proximity to the caregiver
L4:
What constitutes threat?
(Needed for attachment behaviours to be activated)
> Danger (real or potential)
- internal (sickness, hunger, pain, irregular temperature)
- external (loud noises, strangers, being ALONE)
Being alone is the most common reasons for infants crying (Newman 1985)
L4:
What happens when the attachment system is activated?
The exploration system is deactivated
L4:
What is the exploration system?
Name some behaviours
Activated when not under perceived threat, this is the system that motivates children to explore their surroundings.
Some exploration behaviours include:
- Curiosity about surroundings
- Curiosity about self-efficacy (ability to achieve goals)
- Seeking to master their environment
L4:
Describe Mary Ainsworth’s Strange Situation procedure
This procedure was developed to examine individual differences in attachment. She classified 3 types of attachment: Secure, anxious-avoidant, anxious-resistant/ ambivalent.
The strange situation exposes a child to threat (separation from caregiver, stranger or both), in order to observe how they seek support from their caregiver.
Method:
7 episodes consisting of stranger introduction, separations and reunion.
The child’s behaviour upon the reunion with the caregiver is what tells us about their attachment.
L4:
What does it mean to have a ‘secure attachment’?
50-60% of children have a secure attachment, so by far the most common classification.
Generally characterised by:
- Positive view of self and others.
- Believe they are lovable. Believe others are trustworthy
- Social world is a safe place
- Open and engaged interaction with caregivers
- Explores the world freely in the absence of threat
This kind of attachment generally forms when the caregiver is kind, sensitive, consistent, emotionally reciprocal etc.
L4:
What does it mean to have an ‘insecure/ anxious avoidant attachment’?
20-25% of children have an i/a-avoid attachment, so the second most common classification.
Generally characterised by:
- Caregivers tend to be rejecting
- Positive view of self
- Negative view of others
- Others are experiences as untrustworthy
- Infant learns to suppress negative emotions
- Best response is self-reliance
- Being ‘good’ means not becoming upset - they still might really need the caregiver
- Physically and emotionally avoid the caregiver
- Deny the importance of the attachment relationship
L4:
What does it mean to have an ‘insecure resistant/ anxious ambivalent attachment’?
10-15% of children experiment an i-resist/a-ambiv attachment, so it’s the least common classification.
Generally characterised by:
- Caregivers tend to be inconsistent
- Negative view of self
- Angry with others, but still very eager to please others
- Clingy and dependent in order to gain a caring response from caregiver
- Difficult to soothe as young children
- Best outcomes result from hyperactivating negative affect
- Preoccupation with availability
L4:
Explain why an insecure attachment isn’t necessarily problematic
It’s adaptive - an organised strategy that works in the given situation
L4:
Name and explaint the 4th attachment style
(Subsequently classified by Main and Solomon in 1990, after Ainsworths SS Study)
Disorganised/ disorganised disoriented attachment
10-25% of children, tied least common with insecure resistance/ anxious ambivalent BUT can be up to 60% in high risk samples…
Characterised by:
- Caregiver is frightening or frightened (abusive or abused), insensitive, aggressive
- Presents an impossible conundrum for the child, the biologically programmed source of care is also the source of threat
- Inconsistent and contradictory behaviours in young children (will approach and avoid at the same time)
L4:
Name some correlates/ consequences of attachment style
Secure attachment to parents predicts academic achievement, as early as toddlerhood for pre-academic skills. Secures are more engaged in joint reading. Develop better pre-reading skills.
Insecure toddlers tend to have shorter attention spans and perform worse on cognitive tasks than secure toddlers.
L4:
The study of adult attachment
(Brief when it started, how its done)
Adult attachments to parents are examined during adulthood using interviews - ‘narrative measures’
Adult attachment has been studied since the 1980s
Takes a self-report approach
L4:
What does individual differences mean in the context of attachment psychology?
Looks at how attachment styles and behaviour differ between children - how attachment isn’t the same for everyone. Not all attachments are equal, individual differences depend on the quality of care given by the caregivers.
L4:
What are narrative measures?
The interviews conducted on adults in order to gain insight into adult attachment to caregivers - no longer appropriate to do observational lab studies
L4:
Hazan and Shaver (Love Quiz) Study
Translated Ainsworths patterns of infant attachment, categorically, into adult relationships: Secure, Avoidant, Anxious/Ambivalent
Newspaper advertised a love quiz (n=602)
Concluded that adult romantic love is an attachment process with similar observable individual differences as the SSP
(See reading)
L4:
Briefly explain some studies into individual differences in adult attachment styles
(Bartholemew and Horowitz)
Bartholemew and Horowitz (1991)
- Split the 3 styles into 4, like how Main and Soloman classified disorganised/ disorganised disoritented in 1990. Lots of dimensional measures were developed around this time, the result being that people classified attachments lots of different ways in the 1990s
L4:
Briefly explain some studies into individual differences in adult attachment styles
(Brennan, Clark and Shaver)
Brennan, Clark and Shaver (1998)
- Used several of the many developed measures to create the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECRS)
Measures attachment along two dimensions of insecurity:
- Avoidance of emotional intimacy (18 items)
- Anxiety about abandonment (18 items)
There two dimensions tally with Bartholemew’s 4 styles:
- Dismissing
- Fearful
- Preoccupied
- Secure
L4:
Use testimony to explain the 4 attachment styles outlined by Brennan, Clark and Shaver in the ECRS
> Dismissing (Don’t need)
High avoidance, low anxiety
‘I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.’
> Fearful (Scared)
High avoidance, high anxiety
‘I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.’
> Preoccupied (Needy)
High anxiety, low avoidance
‘I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.’
> Secure (Comfortable)
Low avoidance, low anxiety
‘It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or having others not accept me.’
L4:
Attachment styles as strategies of affect regulation
Affect regulation is just the regulation of ones own emotions. How do attachment styles protect/ regulate our feelings?
Avoidance - deactivating strategies, downplaying/suppressing negative affect, deactivating attachment behaviours
Anxiety - hyperactivating strategies, emphasising negative affect, hyper activating attachment behaviours
L4:
One study into adult attachment behaviours was the Airport Separations Study by Fraley and Shaver (1998).
Explain their method and procedure
> Method - observational study of couple behaviour in an airport, looking into separation behaviour
> Procedure -
Phase 1 - observations and notes taken in airport to develop coding system of common behaviours
Scheme included: hugging, eye-contact, kissing, sitting close, crying, whispering “I love you”, extended hand stretch, delaying separation until last possible moment, contact seeking, contact maintenance, avoidance, sexuality, sadness, resistance
Phase 2 - couples approached at airports and asked to complete questionnaires (‘effects of modern travel on relationships’), including attachment avoidance and anxiety and feelings about any forthcoming separation
After completion, another researcher began to unobtrusively take notes on their behaviour until departure
L4:
One study into adult attachment behaviours was the Airport Separations Study by Fraley and Shaver (1998).
Explain their results and conclusion
> Results -
109 couples observed (57% separating, 43% flying together)
Separating couples exhibited more contact seeking, contact maintenance, avoidance, sexuality and sadness (women only) behaviours than non-separating couples
Among separators:
Highly avoidant men and women were less likely to maintain proximity to their partners and were less likely to provide care and support.
The women were also less likely to seek care and support.
Highly anxious women reported more distress.
Highly anxious men were less likely to maintain contact.
> Conclusions -
Functional dynamics of attachment is similar in adult romantic relationships to child-parent ones
Concerns about availability, accessibility results in increased attachment behaviours
You can see deactivation (downplaying) and hyperactivation (overplaying) in action
L4:
Attachment avoidance and anxiety may have intra-personnal and inter-personal correlates and consequences…
Explain some consequences of attachment avoidance and anxiety into adulthood
Intra-personal (within yourself)
- self-esteem*
- emotion regulation*
- mental health
- coping
- percieved social support
- physical health
- pain tolerance
Inter-personal (between people)
- caregiving style
- parenting style
- empathy levels
- prosocial behaviour
- prejudice/ discrimination
L4:
Attachment networks
(Schemas vs the IWM)
Bowlby termed the cognitive structures that hold the information comprising our attachment styles ‘Internal Working Models’ (IWMs)
Social and Cognitive psychologists call them ‘schema’
There is a tension between thinking of attachment styles as traits vs. situation specific models (so saying, this attachment style is part of your personality, or it’s a result of your situation).
We do have multiple attachment relationships in our lives, and they can have different styles
L4:
Attachment styles as schema
(picture built up across multiple relationships, and subject to availability of those experiences)
Because we have multiple attachment relationships in our network, we have multiple attachment schema (some secure, some insecure)
Our general attachment style is likely to be based on a whole range of experiences, and the cognitive availability and accessibility of these experiences (Baldwin et al, 1996)
People said to have a global attachment style, as well as relationship-specific attachment styles, in a sort of ‘tangled web’.
L4:
Explain how priming is sometimes used to make attachment styles salient
Just like any other cognitive schemas, attachment styles can be made salient by priming
Priming procedures can be relationship-specific or generic - E.g.
- Identify someone with whom you feel (desc. of security) and write about your relationship with them for 10 minutes.
- Imagine a scenario in which you feel (desc. of security) and write about it for ten minutes
Priming procedures can be subliminal (unconscious) or supraliminal (conscious)
- Love, hug, support, care, comfort
L4:
‘Priming’ attachment styles experiment
Explain the aim in a sentence, and summarise their results
(Rowe and Carnelley 2003)
They wanted to examine the effects of primed attachment styles on recall of positive and negative attachment word targets
Results -
Showed that ppts recalled words in a way congruent with the style they were primed with
Also true for interpersonal (between people) expectations, with primed secures having the most positive interpersonal expectations, and primed anxious having the most negative interpersonal expectations
L4:
Using security priming
(Priming for secure attachment styles)
Security priming could contribute to the improvement of many aspects of interpersonal relations
Recent research has begun to explore the potential of security priming to improve:
- Relationship expectations, self views, and attachment anxiety
- Felt security via text message boosters
- Compassion, altruism
- Negative reactions to outgroups
- Cognitive openness
- Pain threshold and tolerance
L4:
Summarise lecture 4 in bullet points
> Attachment theory describes the interplay between the attachment and exploration behavioural systems
- Observable in childhood and in adulthood
Self-report methods extended attachment theory to look at romantic love in adulthood as an attachment process
The social-cognitive study of individual differences in adult attachment began with categories, but now measures dimensions of avoidance and anxiety
We have multiple attachments in life, and so we have multiple attachment schema
- This means that researchers can prime different attachment styles
L4 Reading:
What characteristics were the experiences of secure, avoidant and anxious adults hypothesised to have?
The researchers predicted that the romantic relationships of secure individuals would be characterised by trust, friendship, and positive emotions.
In contrast, avoidant individuals were hypothesised to experience these relationships with fear of closeness and lack of trust.
Those with an anxious attachment style were expected to experience romantic relationships as a painfully exciting and preoccupying struggle to merge with the other person
(Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
L4 Reading:
What were the findings in relation to the hypothesis?
Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that their results broadly supported their hypotheses.
Secure participants reported that their most important relationship was happy, friendly, and trusting, accepting, and supportive. They reported warm relationships with their parents.
Avoidant participants reported fearing intimacy, emotional highs and lows, and jealousy. They reported that their mothers were cold and rejecting.
Anxious participants reported obsession, desire for reciprocation, emotional highs and lows, and extreme attraction and jealousy. They reported that their fathers were unfair.
L5:
What are the learning objectives for Social Lecture 5: ‘View of Self and Others’?
> Define individual differences in attachment models of self and other
Use research evidence to support and critique the theory on models of self and other
- Defensive self-enhancement
- Perception of partners
Explain sustaining self-related vulnerabilities
- Hopeless cognitive style
- Patterns of feedback seeking
L5:
Internal working models of attachment
What are they? What do they consist of?
Internal working models of attachment (mental representations) are ‘schema’, acting as a template or guide for future attachments, based on past history of received caregiving experiences.
IWM comprise of beliefs about the self and beliefs about other people (Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991).
L5:
Internal working models of attachment
How might different personal histories of care affect future internal working models?
> History of sensitive, responsive care = I’m lovable, other are generally there for me
> History of rejection/ inconsistent care = I’m unlovable (there must be something bad about me), others can’t be relied upon (there must be something bad about other people)
IMW underpin individual attachment style
L5:
Appraisals of self-worth and self-competence
(Mulincer and Shaver 2007)
In 2007 there were more than 60 studies looking at attachment style and self-esteem (Mulincer and Shaver 2007). Without exception, attachment security was positively associated with self esteem
In most of the 60 studies:
- Anxious (preoccupied or fearful) participants had lower self esteem than securely attached people
- Attachment anxiety (separate from att. style) was negatively associated with self esteem
- Less clear for avoidance – half the studies found no evidence of SE deficits is avoidant participants, but many studies did
L5:
Appraisals of self-worth and self-competence
(Schmitt and Allik 2005)
Used Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale in 53 nations worldwide to assess self-worth and self-competence in relation to attachment style
Found:
- Negative association between attachment anxiety and self-esteem in 49 countries.
- Significant negative correlation between avoidance and self-esteem in 18 countries
- Fear of abandonment fits with doubt over own value
Avoidance inconsistencies could be related to different measurement methods
Or, different kinds of avoidance (dismissing vs fearful)
L5:
Appraisals of self-worth and self-competence
What about moving past simply measuring self-esteem?
(Pietromonaco & Barrett 1997)
Pietromonaco & Barrett (1997)
- College students did daily self-evaluations for a week
- For interactions longer than 10 mins, rated how worthy they felt during the interaction
- Attachment anxious students reported more negative self-evaluations after everyday social interactions (even non-conflictual ones)
- Avoidant students’ ratings fell between those of the anxious and secure students
Their vulnerability to negative self-evaluations was chronic (recurring) and occurred across the whole group
L5:
In terms of self-esteem and attachment styles
What do we know about avoidant individuals?
Avoidant individuals sometimes tend to have positive self-views, but how genuine these are is questionable
Research evidence suggests that avoidant individuals engage in ‘Defensive self-enhancement’
L5:
What is defensive self-enhancement?
So, avoidant individuals engage in this phenomena, this attachment style is characterised by…
rejecting caregivers, so a negative view of others (see as untrustworthy).
Quote: “D.S.E indicates that a person has been forced … to cope with life’s difficulties without adequate mental representations of attachment security, and … [they] struggle to maintain a sense of self-worth …
This is the fate of avoidant individuals … whose compulsive self-reliance and reluctance to rely on other people encourages them to inflate their positive self-views and deny or suppress negative information about themselves.”(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007)
They use the technique to stick an emotional plaster over underlying issues
Avoidant attachment is also associated with poor self-clarity.
L5:
Defensive self-enhancement experiment
Mikulincer (1998)
Describe the experimental method used
Mikulincer (1998)
- used a pretend cognitive task with feedback (n=108)
- electrodes were put on ppts’ arms
4 conditions:
electrodes (told either for muscle activity monitoring or for lie detector, which was bogus)
feedback (either negative or neutral)
- asked to rate whether 60 adjectives (positive/negative) described them (yes/no).
- given a surprise memory test for the adjectives
- Failure feedback is akin to mild threat*
L5:
Defensive self-enhancement experiment
Mikulincer (1998)
Describe the results they found
Anxious ppts endorsed less positive traits and more negative traits overall
> Failure feedback condition:
*Anxious:
- Saw more negative traits as self-attributes after failure than after no feedback
- Recalled more negative than positive attributes
Shows self-defeatism /helplessness
Avoidant :
They endorsed more positive traits and less negative traits as self-attributes after failure than after no feedback
Of all the attributes they recalled, a greater % were positive
Shows self-reliance
Secure:
Endorsed more positive AND negative traits, but no difference between failure and no feedback in recall
> The bogus pipeline condition
(reduced self regulation and promotes honesty)
wiped out these effects for avoidant individuals
So avoidant individuals will act as if they have high self esteem, but underneath it they might actually have negative self-views (defensive self-enhancement)
L5:
Why do insecure attachment styles seem to encourage the sustainance of self-related vulnerabilities?
Avoidance and anxiety are associated with patterns of vulnerabilities/ thinking that serve to sustain (unhelpful, defensive) views and beliefs about the self
So, why do people with insecure attachment styles continue to think in ways that make them feel bad about themselves?
Name the two ways
- Hopeless cognitive style
2. Patterns of feedback seeking
L5:
Explain the ‘hopeless cognitive style’ in relation to sustaining self-related vulnerabilities
(Abramson et al. ,1989)
- A self-defeating attributional style (‘everything is my own fault’) - reinforces self-blame, hopelessness, passivity, helplessness
- Perceived lack of abilities needed to alter unpleasant experiences (‘I can’t change anything bad’)
- Major risk factor for depression
Lots of studies have found that attachment anxiety is associated with this hopeless cognitive style
(in relation to academic and interpersonal problems, or failures due to lack of ability)
Less clear findings for avoidance
L5:
Explain ‘patterns of feedback seeking’ in relation to sustaining self-related vulnerabilities
Brennan and Morris (1997)
Explain the procedure used
We seek feedback to validate our self-knowledge (good and bad)
Brennan and Morris (1997)
- asked ppts to imagine their romantic partner being asked questions about them
Asked to rate the extent to which they would prefer the questions to evoke positive or negative information
E.g. “Why do you think your partner might have difficulty maintaining an intimate relationship? (negative information) or “Why do you think your partner is especially good at maintaining an intimate relationship?” (positive information)
L5:
Explain ‘patterns of feedback seeking’ in relation to sustaining self-related vulnerabilities
Brennan and Morris (1997)
Explain the findings
We seek feedback to validate our self-knowledge (good and bad)
Findings revealed that insecure people, either anxious or avoidant, were more likely than secure ones to prefer negative feedback.
Negative views of self cause insecure individuals to keep on seeking confirmatory negative information
L5:
IMW and view of others
Others generally - character traits of others
Experiences with attachment figures become internalised into working models of others (Bowlby, 1973)
Models can be generalised across relationships - we can treat new relationship partners similarly to how we have experienced past relationships
Secure – Likely to beleive that:
- other people are generally “well intentioned providers of protection, comfort, and security”
- forgiving and positive explanations of other behaviours
Anxious ppts more likely to believe that:
- Others are difficult to understand
- They themselves have little control over their lives
Avoidant ppts more likely to believe that:
- Human beings are not altruistic, they are unwilling to stand up for their beliefs
- others are unable to control their lives
L5:
IMW and view of others
Others generally - esteem and acceptance of others
Insecure people tend to lack of esteem for, and acceptance of others
They have doubts about other people’s trustworthiness
And disrespect for relationship partners
L5:
IMW and view of others
Others generally - Experiment
(Meyer, Pilkonis, & Beevers, 2004)
Don’t need to remember names
Method - face perception study
Procedure - participants saw a set of 10 neutral faces and rated them for characteristics
(Dislike/Like, Attractive/Unattractive, Unfriendly/Friendly, Good-natured/Mean-spirited)
> Anxiety was associated with seeing fewer positive traits in the faces
Avoidance was associated with seeing more negative traits in the faces (Meyer, Pilkonis, & Beevers, 2004)
Insecure attachment makes us see things that are not there!
L5:
IWM and view of others
Parents - Hazan and Shaver
(Original study)
Seminal work on attachment in adulthood (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)
Method: Newspaper survey of community ppts, AND a study of students. Looked at attachment-style differences in memories of parents’ attitudes and behaviours toward the self in childhood.
Results:
- Secure ppts described parents as more respectful, responsive, caring, accepting, and undemanding than did anxious ppts
- Avoidant ppts in the newspaper survey described parents in more negative terms than secure participants
- Avoidant students provided more positive descriptions of their parents
Idealizing parents when young (students) as a way of evading distressing memories, but maturity and distance from parents allows older adults (community) to acknowledge the less positive aspects of their experiences
L5:
IWM and view of others
Parents - Hazan and Shaver
(Supporting Studies)
In 2007, >50 published studies supported Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) findings
Security of attachment to parents (or a secure style in close relationships) was associated with viewing parents as caring, loving, and accepting
But there were no clear differences between anxiety and avoidance.
> two thirds of the studies showed associations between anxiety OR avoidance scores and more negative descriptions of parents
So it’s about insecurity, rather the specific type
L5:
IWM and view of others
Partners
Romantic partners tend to be primary attachment figures (in established relationships)
Both anxiety and avoidance are negatively associated with perceived predictability, dependability, and faithfulness of romantic partners (Collins & Read, 1990)
L5:
IWM and view of others
Partners - Experiment 1
(Collins and Feeney - 2004, Study 1)
Explain the Aim, method and procedure of the study
Collins and Feeney (2004, Study 1)
Aim: Wanted to observe support behaviours in adult couples, in order to gain insight on attachment style/ characteristics
Method: Dating couples were informed that one member of the couple would perform a stressful task (giving a videotaped speech)
Procedure:
- Couple was then unobtrusively videoed for 5 minutes to code supportive behaviours
- Couple members were separated, and the non-speech-making partner copied out a note, either:
> Clearly supportive ( “Don’t worry—just say how you feel and what you think and you’ll do great”)
Ambiguously supportive (“Try not to say anything too embarrassing—especially since so many people will be watching your tape”)
- The speech-giver then read the notes and rated
> the supportiveness of the note
> the supportiveness of the partner’s behaviours
L5:
IWM and view of others
Partners - Experiment 1
(Collins and Feeney - 2004, Study 1)
Explain the findings of the study
- No significant attachment-style difference in appraisals of supportive notes
Insignificant Results:
- Insecure ppts rated the ambiguous notes as less supportive, more upsetting, and more negative than did secure participants
- Insecure ppts rated rated their partner’s behaviours as less supportive (than did the researchers)
Ambiguous notes activated attachment-related worries, heightened access to negative working models of others, and negatively biased insecure ppts’ appraisals of the note, causing them to negatively re-construe their partner’s supportiveness during the interaction.
Secure ppts were not vulnerable to the ambiguous notes. They evaluated them as less supportive than the supportive notes, but they didn’t negatively re-construe events in the past.
L5:
IWM and view of others
Partners - Experiment 2
(Baldwin et al. 1993)
Explain the Aim, method and procedure of the study
Aim: Wanted to examined access to beliefs about partners’ supportiveness implicitly using a Lexical-Decision Task (LDT) (making decisions really fast)
Method: Participants read sentences with either an attachment context
“If I depend on my partner, then my partner will…”
or a non-attachment context
“If I wash the dishes, then my partner will…”
Target strings of letters depicted positive partner behaviours (“support”), negative partner behaviours (“leave”), neutral behaviours (“read”), or non- words (“scpprot”)
Procedure:
72 trials, making lexical decisions as fast as possible
Reaction times thought to measure the accessibility of the target words
L5:
IWM and view of others
Partners - Experiment 2
(Baldwin et al. 1993)
Explain the findings of the study
> Secure ppt had shorter RTs to words naming positive behaviours within an interpersonal context than to negative behaviour words
Insecurely attached ppts had faster RTs when responding to negative behaviour words than to positive behaviour words
So, secure ppts had ready mental access to positive expectations, insecure people had easier access to pessimistic expectations.
(Baldwin et al.,1993)
L5:
Conclusions on the whole lecture
- Attachment insecurity reflects unstable self concepts and negative (or ambivalent) views of others
The 4-category model proposed by Bartholomew & Horowitz (1991) is overly simplistic:
- Dismissingly avoidant people hold explicitly positive views of self, BUT these views are based on defensive self-enhancement
- Anxious people view their relationship partners as a badly needed personal “saviour,” BUT they also hold negative views and biases against perceiving relationship partner’s good intentions as genuine
L5:
Summary of the whole lecture
IWMs are schema and come from internalised experiences
Attachment schema comprise beliefs about self-worth and self-competence,
Attachment avoidance is associated with defensive self-enhancement in response to threat
Negative self-views of insecurely attachment individuals are maintained by self-related vulnerabilities, including a hopeless cognitive style, and negative patterns of feedback seeking
Insecure individuals see others, including parents, and partners, in a negative light
There is support for Bartholomew & Horowitz’s (1991) model, but the model is overly simplistic – it’s possible to have mixed views of self and other, and these can be accessed by different methodologies
L5 Reading Questions:
What are the views of self, and views of others hypothesised in each of the 4 cells of the proposed typology?
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)
Cell 1 = secure style
- positive view of self (self as lovable)
- positive view of others (others as accepting and responsive)
Cell 2 = preoccupied style
- negative view of self (unworthy, unlovable)
- positive view of others
Cell 3 = fearful-avoidant style
- negative view of self (unlovable, unworthy)
- negative view of others (untrustworthy and rejecting)
Cell 4 = dismissive-avoidant style
- positive view of self (self as worthy of love)
- negative view of others.
L5 Reading Questions:
Briefly describe each of the 4 groups using the descriptive results from study
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)
Secure group had high interview coherence, friendship intimacy, warmth, balance in friendships, and involvement in romantic relationships.
Preoccupied group had high elaboration, self-disclosure, emotional expressiveness, crying frequency, reliance on others, use of others as secure base, crying in presence of others, caregiving, and romantic involvement, but low coherence and balance of control.
Fearful group had low self-confidence, balance of control, self-disclosure, intimacy, level of involvement in romantic relationships, capacity to rely on others, and to use of others as secure base
Dismissing group had high self-confidence and control in relationships, and low elaboration, emotional expressiveness, crying frequency, warmth, closeness, caregiving, self-disclosure, intimacy, level of romantic involvement, reliance on others, and use of others as secure base.
L5 Reading Questions:
What strategies are proposed to be used by dismissing and preoccupied styles to cope with unwanted social information?
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)
Preoccupied individuals may blame themselves for rejections they perceive from others. This enables them to retain a generally positive view of others, despite their experience. Dismissing individuals may deny the importance of others who have rejected them. This enables them to maintain high self-regard despite their experience
L5 Reading Questions:
Why do the authors argue for a 4-way typology, rather than Hazan & Shaver’s 3-way typology?
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)
Bartholomew & Horowitz argue for a 4-way typology rather than 3 because their data showed that working models of self and working models of other can be different. That is, they are separate dimensions. The valence of view of self and other does not have to be the same for the models to be mutually confirming
L6:
What are the learning objectives of social psych lecture 6: Emotion regulation?
- Describe the processes and consequences of hyperactivating and deactivating strategies in Mikulincer & Shaver’s (2007) model
- Use research evidence to say what these strategies mean for > Preconscious activation > Appraisal patterns > Physiological responses to stress > Facial expressions
L6:
Attachment system functioning
(When activated under threat, for example)
Mulincer and Shaver
Mikulincer & Shaver applied control systems approach* to the attachment behavioural system to develop a dynamic model comprising 3 segments:
- Activation of the attachment system and resultant primary strategy of proximity seeking
- Consequences of proximity seeking – helpful or not?
- Secondary strategies that can be used if the primary strategy fails
Each segment involves monitoring and appraisal of different stimuli
*Control systems state that we examine the self to assess whether we are meeting our personal goals. If we are not meeting our goals, we then take corrective action (or ‘operate’). We then re-appraise.
L6:
Attachment system functioning
What is the hyperactivating affect regulation strategy?
Occurs for people with attachment anxiety (insecure-anxious).
Sign of threat -> activated attachment system -> attachment figure is unavailable/ unattentive/ unresponsive -> attachment insecurity (compounding of distress) -> if proximity seeking is a viable option hyperactivating emotion regulation occurs (hyper-vigilence regarding threat and attachment-related cues)
L6:
Attachment system functioning
What is the deactivating affect regulation strategy?
Occurs for people with attachment avoidance (insecure-avoidant).
Sign of threat -> activated attachment system -> attachment figure is unavailable/ unattentive/ unresponsive -> attachment insecurity (compounding of distress) -> if proximity seeking is not a viable option deactivating strategies occur (distancing of threat and attachment-related cues)
L6:
Attachment system functioning
What effects do the hyper/de-activating strategies of affect regulation have on the individual over time?
Neural circuits supporting each pathway around the model are reinforced over time through repeated use
Meaning, if the caregiver is constantly unresponsive, and proximity seeking is not viable during times of threat when the attachment system is activated, the deactivating system pathway is reinforced (and vice versa for the hyperactivating pathway).
L6:
Attachment system functioning
What is missing from Mulincer and Shavers dynamic model (3 segments)?
The model tells us about anxious (hyperactivating) and avoidant (deactivating) styles, but what about secure and fearful?
…It is possible to use hyperactivating/deactiviating affect regulation strategies rarely (in the case of secure attachment style)…
…Or to oscillate awkwardly between the two (in the case of fearful attachment style)
Note that the model is influenced by context –>
Reminding an insecure person of a time when they felt supported by an attachment figure will make them momentarily more secure
This is how priming different attachment styles works!
L6:
Attachment system functioning
What is the “broaden and build cycle of security”?
When attachment figures are appraised as available and responsive, individuals are able to manage their distress and recover from threat
Repeated experiences of this lead to positive working models of self and other, and positive memories of having regulated distress, leading to hope and optimism
- Others are seen as sensitive and kind
- The self is seen as capable and lovable
This procedural knowledge of how to deal with stress forms a “secure base script”
L6:
Attachment system functioning
What is a ‘secure base script’?
Collection of procedural knowledge on how to deal with stress - based on a repeated/ reinforced secure attachment with responsive caregiver where threat distress is able to be managed
- Acknowledging and appropriately communicating distress
- Seeking proximity and intimacy
- Engaging in problem solving
L6:
Attachment system functioning
What constitutes threat?
(People older than infancy)
Threat can be:
Attachment-related or attachment-unrelated
Examples of threat:
- Concerning or frightening medical diagnosis
- Hearing a newsflash about a terrorist attack nearby
- Noticing that your partner seems to be attracted to someone else
Threat activates the attachment system –>
- Heightens access to working models of attachment and associated action tendencies
- Increases likelihood of seeking proximity (normative)
- Subject to the individual differences of hyperactivating and deactivating neural pathways
L6:
Attachment system functioning
Threat appraisal
How do we perceive threat? Deal with threat?
Threat is appraised subjectively
Perception is more important than reality
Perception is biased by hyperactivating/deactivating strategies
Not necessarily a conscious process
- Threat can be unconscious / administered subliminally
- Appraisal can be inferred from associated physiological reactions, or accessibility to threat-related thoughts (e.g. reaction time data)
Threat can come from within
- Thoughts, memories, daydreams
L6:
Attachment system functioning
Why is the fact that threat appraisal is not necessarily a conscious process useful to researchers?
We can activate the attachment system relatively easily
- Thinking about one’s own mortality
- Presenting the word ‘death’ subliminally
- Imagining an argument with an attachment figure
L6:
Attachment system functioning
What constitutes proximity seeking in adulthood?
On appraising threat:
- The attachment system is activated preconsciously
- Heightened access to attachment-related thoughts and action tendencies - Conscious thoughts of seeking proximity, possible action in that direction
> In childhood, movement from 1 to 2 is rapid.
In adulthood, thresholds are much higher and it takes longer
Might also be satisfied mentally rather than behaviourally (thinking about attachment figures might be enough to restore felt security)
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Emotions are…?
- Functional, organized systems of evaluative thoughts and action tendencies
- Supported by physiological changes, some of which have perceptible consequences (e.g., speeded heart rate, blushing, gasping for air)
- Generated by the appraisal of internal and external events in relation to goals and concerns
…The generation and expression of emotions are affected by regulatory efforts
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Describe a model of regulatory efforts
(Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987)
This model is in the form of a flow diagram where the arrows go both ways.
Regulatory efforts
- Notable change or event in external or internal world
- Appraisal of the event in relation to goals, wishes and concerns
- Emotion-specific thoughts, action tendencies and underlying physiology
- Facial expressions, thoughts, behaviours, subjective feelings (loops back to notable changes)
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
How do individual differences in attachment style (levels of attachment avoidance and anxiety) affect how we appraise…Emotion eliciting events/ Regulate, experience and express emotions in thoughts, feelings, action tendencies and behaviour
Emotion eliciting events
Regulate, experience and express emotions in thoughts, feelings, action tendencies and behaviour
Attachment security:
- Healthy, flexible, and ‘reality-attuned’ regulatory processes that allow emotions to be experienced and expressed without defensive distortion
Attachment insecurities:
- Distortion or denial of emotional experience, unconscious suppression of potentially functional emotions, dysfunctional rumination on threats, and poor coping skills
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Describe some empirical evidence for preconscious activation of attachment cognitions
(Mulincer et al 2000)
Describe the method and procedure
Mikulincer et al. (2000)
Presented a subliminal prime prior to a lexical decision task (looking at reaction times) containing proximity words (love, hug, closeness), separation words (rejection, separation, abandonment), neutral words (office, table, boat)
Prime was a threat (e.g. ‘failure’) or neutral (e.g. ‘hat’) word displayed for 20 ms prior to each LDT trial
Here it’s much slower so you can see it!
(Note the ‘mask’ after the prime)
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Describe some empirical evidence for preconscious activation of attachment cognitions
(Mulincer et al 2000)
Describe the results
(Mulincer et al 2000)
All ppts had faster RTs to proximity words after threat prime
Secure and avoidant had slower RTs to separation words after threat prime
Anxious ppts had faster RTs to all attachment words (including negative ones about separation and rejection) following either prime
When cognitive load was introduced (headphones task):
Avoidant ppts showed faster RTs to separation words after threat prime under cognitive load – the defensive strategy breaks down
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Describe some empirical evidence for preconscious activation of attachment cognitions
(Mulincer et al 2000)
Describe the conclusions
Findings show…
Anxious ppts’ - hyperactivating strategies keep rejection-related thoughts available in working memory (even under no threat)
Avoidant ppts - worries about rejection and separation seemed generally to be mentally inaccessible, BUT, such worries became accessible in response to threat primes under cognitive load (defensive strategy breaks down).
…Social cognition research has shown that addition of a cognitive load increases the accessibility of material that a person is trying to suppress
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Briefly state the findings of some empirical evidence for attachment differences in appraisal patterns
For the SECURE attachment style
(Researcher names removed because fuck that)
Attachment orientation is related to beliefs and expectations about being able to resist or cope effectively with stress:
> Attachment security is associated with:
- Ego-resiliency
- Perceived coping resources
- Positive expectations regarding the regulation of negative moods
- Greater confidence in one’s ability to solve life problems
- Optimistic and hopeful attitudes toward life
- Hardier, more stress-resistant attitudes
- Attachment security is associated with distress-alleviating appraisals
- Stressful events are appraised in less threatening ways and the self is appraised as able to cope effectively
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Briefly state the findings of some empirical evidence for attachment differences in appraisal patterns
For the ANXIOUS attachment style
(Meredith, Strong and Feeney 2005)
Attachment anxiety is associated with distress-intensifying appraisals
Threats are seen as extreme and coping resources as deficient
Meredith, Strong and Feeney (2005) studied chronic pain patients
> Cognitive appraisal of pain is critical to experience of pain
- Physiological signal vs. emotional responses to it
Secures found their pain less threatening than dismissing or fearful, and catastrophized less than fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Briefly state the findings of some empirical evidence for attachment differences in appraisal patterns
For the AVOIDANT attachment style
Attachment avoidance - the findings are less consistent
Most studies find that avoidant people’s coping appraisals are similar to those of secure people (appraising coping resources as adequate)
But, it’s not the same for threat appraisal:
- Most studies find that avoidance (like anxiety) is associated with appraising stressful events as highly threatening
- Avoidant defences break down under cognitive load!
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Empirical evidence for attachment differences in physiological responses to stress
(Kirkpatrick et al)
Kirkpatrick and colleagues examined women’s physiological responses (heart rate and blood pressure) to stressful events (e.g., performing a stressful arithmetic task) either the presence or the absence of their romantic partner
Secure women had milder physiological stress responses than avoidant or anxiously attached women in both experimental conditions
Physiological stress responses of insecure women were exacerbated (rather than mitigated) by the presence of their romantic partner!
Feeney and Kirkpatrick (1996) explain that:
- A partner’s presence had no effect on secure women’s responses, possibly because they were able to regulate their emotions with or without the partner’s presence
- For insecure women, their partner’s presence seemed to add to their distress (possibly because the partner had been perceived as overly critical or inadequately supportive in the past)
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Empirical evidence for attachment differences in physiological responses to stress
(Diamond et al)
Describe the method and procedure of the study
Studied attachment differences in physiological responses to stress in 74 cohabiting couples (148 individuals)
- ECR questionnaire measured avoidance and anxiety
- Skin conductance measured via electrodes on non-dominant hand
Procedure:
After baseline measures of skin conductance in relaxed state, ppts were subjected to:
Attachment relevant tasks:
- Relationship description
- ‘Give us a description of your current relationship with your partner. Please speak continuously, and try not to pause.’
- ‘Okay, now list three different adjectives that describe your relationship with your partner.’ Ppts asked to follow up each answer with an example (akin to AAI). - Describe thoughts and feelings during an anticipated or hypothetical separation
Standard psychological stressors (with self-reported distress after each):
- 7 minutes of serial subtraction of 13 from 9000
- Job interview speech/interview task
- Anger recall
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Empirical evidence for attachment differences in physiological responses to stress
(Diamond et al)
Describe the results of the study
Results:
> Avoidance was consistently related to greater SC reactivity
- Significantly more pronounced among female partners
Avoidance was related to a steeper progressive increase in reactivity from the first through to the fifth task (no gender interaction)
Interestingly:
- For those low in avoidance, self-reported distress in the subtraction task and skin conductance were positively correlated
- BUT for those high in avoidance, there was no relationship between self reported distress and skin conductance reactivity
Conclusions:
“Attachment avoidance is associated with a pattern of physiological stress reactivity characteristic of repressive coping:
… heightened and escalating sympathetic nervous system reactivity in the absence of corresponding self-reported distress.”
(Diamond et al., 2006, p. 221)
Again, what avoidant individuals present (to themselves and others), is not the full picture of what’s really going on with them.
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Describe attachment-related individual differences at each stage of the emotion process:
Attachment anxiety and avoidance are hyperactivating and deactivating affect regulation strategies respectively
Activation – anxiety = easy activation, even when no threat, avoidance = defensive, but breaks down with cognitive load
Appraisal – anxiety = easy to appraise stimuli as threat, avoidance = appraise self as able to cope, but also appraises stressful stimuli as threatening
Physiological responses – attachment figure makes physiological response to stress worse, not better, for insecures, avoidance = dissociated relationship between stressed physiology and what they say
Facial expressions – avoidance = repression of mimicry response to angry face
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Security and emotion regulation
Overview according to Mulincer and Shaver
Affords the ability to direct effort to the emotion-generation process:
changing the emotion-eliciting event (e.g., by resolving a conflict or solving a problem)
reappraising it constructively
…and is thereby able to sidestep many painful experiences.
Where emotionally painful experiences do (appropriately) occur, secure individuals can remain open to their emotions (without distortion), express feelings accurately to others, seeking support where appropriate
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Anxiety and emotion regulation
Overview according to Mulincer and Shaver
Cannot risk allowing emotion to flow freely into conscious awareness
Avoidant defences aim to inhibit emotional states that are incongruent with the goal of keeping the attachment system deactivated (Main & Weston, 1982)
Defensive inhibition is directed at:
fear, anxiety, anger, sadness, shame, guilt, distress,
…because these emotions are triggered by threats and can cause unwanted activation of the attachment system
Anger, joy, and happiness imply emotional involvement in a relationship, and such involvement may threaten to expose vulnerabilities and undermine an avoidant person’s self-reliance (Cassidy, 1994)
L6:
Attachment and emotion regulation
Avoidance and emotion regulation
Overview according to Mulincer and Shaver
Can perceive negative emotions as congruent with attachment goals and therefore worth sustaining or exaggerating
Guided by an unfulfilled wish to get attachment figures to pay attention and provide support
They intensify emotions that call for attention
e.g. jealousy, anger
or implicitly emphasise vulnerability
sadness, anxiety, fear, shame
Problem solving can be actively avoided for fear of appearing competent and losing the attention of an attachment figure (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994)
L6:
Summary of Lecture 6
Individual differences in attachment are essentially affect regulation strategies
Avoidance = deactivating AR strategies Anxiety = hyperactivating AR strategies Security = balanced and effective use of proximity seeking, creating broaden and build cycle Fearful = oscillating between hyperaction and deactivation
Attachment and exploration behavioural systems are just as functional and important in adulthood as in childhood.
We measure insecurity along the 2 dimensions of avoidance and anxiety (bisecting to give 4 styles)
Attachment styles in adulthood are schema comprising views of self and other
Attachment styles are affect regulation strategies
We have multiple attachment styles
Attachment is associated with many intra- and inter-personal correlates and consequences
L6 Reading:
What are the universal, normative features of the attachment behavioural system, as suggested by the authors’ findings? (2 steps)
In response to threat, two things occur:
Step 1- mental models of attachment figure(s) become activated.
Step 2: the individual tries to seek proximity (physically or psychologically) to the attachment figure(s).
L6 Reading:
When does avoidant individuals’ capacity to suppress proximity-related worries break down?
The attachment concerns of avoidant individuals become accessible under condition of high cognitive load. That is to say, cognitive load causes avoidant defences to break down.
L6 Reading:
What are the three components of the model of activation and dynamics proposed in this paper?
Component 1: monitoring of threat
Component 2: monitoring the responsiveness of the attachment figure to bids for proximity
Component 3: monitoring the viability of proximity-seeking as a strategy for dealing with distress
