Attachment: Concepts and Measurement Flashcards
what is attachment theory?
the idea that early caregiver-child relationships have long-term consequences for development
what research did bowlby conduct and when?
1947, retrospective research and found 61% of juvenile thieves suffered early prolonged maternal separation during childhood
what did Bowlby and WHO conclude after his research?
suggest that quality of parental care in early childhood was vital for mental health
what were affectional bonds viewed as before the 1950s?
- secondary, whereas bowlby challenged the view that these attachments were as important as primary drive reduction
- the desire to form close bonds was innate
what is attachment?
- strong affectional bond and disposition to seek proximity and contact with someone
- provides a child with a secure base to explore the outside world
what are attachment behaviours?
any form of behaviour resulting in attaining or maintaining proximity to some other clearly identified individual
difference between proximity seeking and proximity maintaining behaviours
seeking - crying, smiling, reaching
maintaining - following, clinging
how did ainsworth and bell (1970) contribute to attachment theory?
theoretically:
- attachment isn’t just about having/not having an attachment
- understanding individual differences in the quality of attachments between infant-caregiver
methodologically:
- using laboratory methods to study attachment behaviours in 12-20 month old infants
bowlby (1969) formation of early attachments
- phase I (before 3 months)
- phase II (3-6 months)
- phase III (9-24 months)
- phase IV (30 months)
What does Bowlblys formation of early attachments demonstrate
- indicates how children go from being general in their attachment seeking behaviours across many adults
- Because of increasing cognitive abilities they are able to formulate more specific attachments to individuals, targeting behaviours specifically to them
- They form working models about their relationships and apply to others
schaefer and emerson (1960)
landmark longitudinal study which found indiscriminate use of proximity seeking behaviours before 30 weeks, after then they become specific to chosen caregivers/ PCG
fearon and roisman (2017) hypotheses derived from attachment theory
universality and normality
continuity
sensitivity
competence
universality normality hypothesis
all infants become securely attached to one or more PCG’s
Normativity hypothesis
Secure attachment is most common/optimal
continuity hypothesis
patterns of attachment are stable over the lifespan
sensitivity hypothesis
early attachment security is dependent on caregiver responsiveness to child’s signals
competence hypothesis
secure attachment leads to positive outcomes in a variety of domains
what are the broad types of measure used to study attachment?
- attachment behaviour
- attachment representations
attachment behaviour
assessment focused on children’s observable attachment behaviour
strange situation procedure (12-20m)
attachment q-sort (12m-6y)
attachment representations
how we think about close relationships we have with others
child attachment interview (7y)
adult attachment interview (16y)
SSP: what was created?
- ainsworth and bell (1970) used a mildly stressful artificial scenario to observe exploratory and attachment behaviours in 1-2y
– These behaviours are thought to reflect something of the children representation of their caregiver (secure= reliable PCG)
SSP why is it used for only 12-24 months
- Children cannot vocalize hence why its observational
- Don’t recognize PCG will return after leaving
- Only works with this age range, age two-three may experience more distress due to past experiences
SSP what behaviours did they look for
- proximity and contact seeking
- contact maintaining
- proximity and interaction avoiding
- contact and interacting resisting
- searching behaviour
SSP: types of attachment
- secure
- avoidant
- resistant
- disorganised
SSP: secure attachment
60%
- may or may not cry upon separation
- quick and positive reaction to reunion
- contact with caregiver reduces distress
SSP: avoidant attachment
15%
- no distress when separated
- does not approach caregiver at reunion
- caregiver and stranger treated similarly
SSP: resistant attachment
10%
- marked distress when separated
- resists contact at reunion
- contact does not reduce distress
SSP: disorganised attachment
15%
- no consistent pattern
- may react with disorientation or fear
reliability of SSP
- consistency across observers
- low test-retest after 2 weeks, but strong after 12-18 months
- moderate rank order stability
- not very ecologically valid
- highly standardised/need training to administer
validity of SSP
- strong correlations for covergent validity
-weak associations with child negative temperament= high discriminant validity
attachment q-sort (AQS)
- waters (1980) developed a more ecological assessment by observing children in homes for 2 hours to compare against a prototype secure profile
- researchers sorts sets of cards
- calculates a continuous score between -1 to +1 representing childs profile to a secure childs profile
AQS sorting cards
-about 75-100 cards
- rating of most-least characteristic of a child (9 catagories)
- each card= a certain behaviour
Strengths of AQS
-natural environment
- suited for 12-48 months
- strong test-retest stability,
- strong convergent validity with SSP
- weak association with temperament (discriminant validity)
Limitations of AQS
- lengthy, no distinction between insecurity as it gives a non categorical score
- lack of valid caregiver ratings
adult attachment interview (AAI)
- Mary Maine looked at recollections about early relationships to reveal representations, using standardised protocol of 15 questions (60-120 mins)
- not really focused on what they say
what does AAI score?
reflection - sense-making of experiences
coherence - evidence and consistency
AAI: types of attachment
- took transcripts and developed 4 ctagories based on AAI analysis
secure
dismissing
preoccupied
unresolved
AAI: secure attachment
- talks easily about relationships
- coherent and consistent accounts
- understands past difficulties
AAI: dismissing attachment
- difficulty remembering experiences
- describes parents positively but does not give evidence
- dismisses importance of relationships
AAI: preoccupied attachment
- excessive attention to caregiver memories; loses focus
- confused, angry
AAI: unresolved attachment
- experience of trauma
- still focused on unresolved issues from past
- hasnt learned to resolve issues
reliability and validity of AAI
strong test-retest 78% reliability within same category even with different observers
autobiographical memory, IQ, and social desirability not associated with attachment group
CAI
- goetz (2018) studied children’s representations and perceptions of their attachment figures’ availability
- separate representations for each figure
- used verbal and non-verbal information to analyse their narratives
- relatively shorter with age appropriate language
- assessed again on coherence and reflection
reliability of CAI
- high inter-rater reliability and test-retest between 3-12 months
- more reliable when talking about mother
Validity of CAI
- classification unrelated to age, SES, IQ or language ability
- clinically referred children show higher levels of insecure attachment
Why do studies usually just use secure vs insecure
- Often when people do research it is hard to do a study with four groups because wed have to look at very large sample sizes so instead researchers look at secure vs insecure OR organised vs disorganised
- as insecure behaviors are quite distinct from one another, analysis may be less meaningful
universality and normality within attachment styles
- all infants show attachment behaviours, and preferential bonds for caregivers universally
- secure attachment is the norm as allows for exploration
what is the emphasis in north america and europe?
- single maternal caregiver (monotropism) and independence of child
studies are mainly confined to this region, despite being only 10% of child world population
What did Mesman (2016) find when looking at SS studies beyond America/Europe
- Confirmation that children did show a preferential bond to caregiver vs a stranger
- Normativity claim: found that using the strange situation, in most settings it appears to be the most common classification however this varies slightly, not being identical in all cultures
- Maybe universality supported but normativity hypothesis is only supported to a degree
mesman (2016) universality does not preclude culture-specific patterns
- attachment styles vary between countries
(indonesia 52% secure vs mexico 77%) - primary attachment figures differ in cultures with more caregivers
- may experience different forms of attachment or exploration behaviour
Mesmen and culture specificity
- The forms of behaviours we may see may differ slightly but still being attachment seeking behaviours
- Insecure behaviours were harder to classify in different cultural settings
how did bowlby (1977) show causality and continuity?
strong causal relationships between individuals’ experience with their parents and later capacity to make affectional bonds
Criticisms about attachment work (Keller, 2018)
- Heavy focus on dyadic relationships (forced to pick only 1 PCG in SS)
- Focus on elaborate coversation and interaction as expression of intimate dyadic bond
- Focus on autonomous child who takes lead in interactions
prototype account (Bowlby )
early caregiving experiences give rise to attachment representations, which become persisting ‘working models’ to shape interpersonal relationships with others
revisionist account
- early caregiving experiences give rise to attachment representations, but changes in caregiving experiences can lead to updated or revised representations
- e.g. PCG gets sick can change secure–> insecure
evidence of Continuity hypothesis (opie, 2021)
- meta-analysis of infants 12-75 months showing moderate evidence for stable classifications between T1 and T2 (opie, 2021)
- T1 secure -> T2 secure 67%,
- T1 secure -> T2 avoidant 25%
- T1 secure -> T2 resistant 28%
less stability with the insecure category
Evidence of continuity hypothesis: prototype account
- groh (2014) early attachments predict later attachment status using the SSP at T1 and AA1 at T2 (secure-secure 61%)
- However this was not universal for all (resistant-preoccupied 1.5%) to performance at 15m is not a reliable predictor on category they got in AAI
booth-la force (2014) lawful discontinuity can be seen in changing attachment types:
secure → secure – stable positive environment
insecure → insecure – stable negative environment (greater declines in parental sensitivity)
insecure → secure – improving circumstances (higher parental sensitivity in childhood )
secure → insecure – declining circumstances (higher levels of negative life events + decline in parental sensitivity )
What does lawful discontinuity: revisionist perspective show
- Bowlby’s initial idea about protype is probably wrong
- Shows things aren’t ‘set in stone’ based on quality of caregiving
- If circumstances change, attachment representation will change
what do practical challenges consider?
- longitudinal research is expensive and time-consuming
- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
