Attachment Flashcards

Question

L4: One study into adult attachment behaviours was the Airport Separations Study by Fraley and Shaver (1998). Explain their results and conclusion

Answer 1

> 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

Answer 2

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

Answer 3

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

Answer 4

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'.

Answer 5

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

Answer 6

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

Answer 7

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

Answer 8

> 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

Answer 9

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).

Answer 10

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.

Answer 11

> 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

Answer 12

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).

Answer 13

> 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

Answer 14

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

Answer 15

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)

Answer 16

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

Answer 17

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'

Answer 18

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.

Answer 19

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*

Answer 20

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)

Answer 21

1. Hopeless cognitive style | 2. Patterns of feedback seeking

Answer 22

(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

Answer 23

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)

Answer 24

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

Answer 25

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

Answer 26

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

Answer 27

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!

Answer 28

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

Answer 29

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

Answer 30

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)

Answer 31

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

Answer 32

- 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.

Answer 33

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

Answer 34

> 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)

Answer 35

- 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

Answer 36

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

Answer 37

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.

Answer 38

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.

Answer 39

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

Answer 40

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

Answer 41

- 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 ```

Answer 42

Mikulincer & Shaver applied control systems approach* to the attachment behavioural system to develop a dynamic model comprising 3 segments: 1. Activation of the attachment system and resultant primary strategy of proximity seeking 2. Consequences of proximity seeking – helpful or not? 3. 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.

Answer 43

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)

Answer 44

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)

Answer 45

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).

Answer 46

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!

Answer 47

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"

Answer 48

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

Answer 49

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

Answer 50

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

Answer 51

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

Answer 52

On appraising threat: 1. The attachment system is activated preconsciously - Heightened access to attachment-related thoughts and action tendencies 2. 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)

Answer 53

- 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

Answer 54

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)

Answer 55

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

Answer 56

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)

Answer 57

(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

Answer 58

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

Answer 59

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

Answer 60

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

Answer 61

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!

Answer 62

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)

Answer 63

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: 1. 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). 2. 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

Answer 64

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.

Answer 65

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

Answer 66

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

Answer 67

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)

Answer 68

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)

Answer 69

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

Answer 70

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).

Answer 71

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.

Answer 72

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