Attachment: Predictors and Consequences

Question 1

what should bowlby’s research not be limited to?

Answer 1

heterosexual mothers and their biological children, although this is the vast majority of studies
- he only discussed the importance of early caregivers towards attachment

Question 2

what do national household statistics show?

Answer 2

mothers still do the majority of caring responsibilities

however, studies may still not be representative of current contemporary working in the UK, as not all families in the UK are two-parent households

Question 3

types of families in the 21st century

Answer 3

• solo-parent families (15% of families in the UK, 20% of these are single fathers)
• LGBTQ families
• adoption, fostering, and assisted reproduction
• grandparents and blended families

Question 4

fox (1991) characteristics of the caregiver

Answer 4

found 65.5% of children were securely attached to their fathers – attachments can be formed outside of maternal relationships

Question 5

ven den fries (2009) adoption studies

Answer 5

observed no difference in security of adopted and non-adopted children after 12 months, and slight evidence of lower security before 12 months

no difference between security of foster children and biological children

Question 6

golombok (1995) assisted reproduction

Answer 6

found no biological influence of security and representations in children, by studying samples from IVF and egg and sperm donation

Question 7

mcconnachie (2010) LGBTQ families

Answer 7

heterosexual couples’ children had lower levels of secure attachment than gay or lesbian parents between 10-14 years

Question 8

feuge (2020) found __% of adopted children were securely attached and __% of gay fathers exhibited sensitive parenting

what is this evidence of?

Answer 8

75, 88

normativity hypothesis (most common attachment form is secure)

caregiving quality is more important for attachment than caregiver gender or sexual identity

Question 9

sensitivity hypothesis

Answer 9

early attachment is dependent on caregivers’ responsiveness to signals

causes of variation in attachment are largely environmental due to attachment cues/communication

Question 10

caregiver sensitivity (ainsworth, 1974)

Answer 10

refers to the ability to perceive and interpret infant signals, and to respond appropriately and promptly

1. awareness of signals
2. interpretation of signals
3. responding appropriately
4. responding promptly

Question 11

what did menard (2002) claim developmental theories must be established by?

Answer 11

• observed variables must co-vary
• covariation must not be spurious
• causal factors must precede outcomes (temporality)

Question 12

what is the purpose of intervention studies?

Answer 12

used to describe attachment, identify predictors of attachment, and identify possible causes of change within attachment security

Question 13

ainsworth (1978) evidence of parental sensitivity being a primary determinant of attachment security

Answer 13

strong associations (r=0.,78) but failed to be replicated in future studies by lucassen (2011) (r=0.22)

opposes the idea that parental sensitivity is the primary determinant in predicting security

Question 14

does temperament influence caregivers’ style of parenting?

Answer 14

groh (2017) suggests so, but concerns over spurious correlation between attachment and parental sensitivity, as they are both related to temperament

Question 15

is parental sensitivity an environmental influence on attachment security?

Answer 15

similar associations between adoptive and biological parents, so yes
(stams, 2002; schoenmaker, 2015)

Question 16

bakermans-kranenburg (2003) intervention meta-analysis

Answer 16

interventions on parental sensitivity training improved child attachment security (d=0.20), showing evidence of causality

Question 17

why are some caregivers more sensitive than others?

Answer 17

others due to inter-generational transmission of attachment (Verhage, 2016), where caregiver and child attachment correlated

Question 18

does caregiving matter for attachment security?

Answer 18

yes, but this is not the primary environmental determinant

also consider other factors, such as mind-mindedness, also associated with attachment and sensitivity

bulk of research on WEIRD participants

Question 19

competence hypothesis

Answer 19

secure attachment leads to positive outcomes in a variety of domains

Question 20

bowlby (1947) competence hypothesis

Answer 20

claimed prolonged maternal separation during the first 5 years of life is “foremost among the causes of delinquent character development”

Question 21

ainsworth (1979) competence hypothesis

Answer 21

ntinued that secure attachments were the basis for forming positive future relationships

Question 22

internalising behaviour

Answer 22

inner-directed behaviour, usually the result of negative emotions

Question 23

externalising behaviour

Answer 23

aggression or defiance directed outwardly to others or the environment

Question 24

how can early attachments matter for later outcomes?

Answer 24

impact on later mental health

impact on later relationships

Question 25

how can negative WM become risk factor for MH problems?

Answer 25

by failing to view self as worthy of love, having negative expectations of others, and low self-confidence and regulation upon stress

Question 26

fearon (2010) and groh (2012) specificity hypothesis

Answer 26

as different types of insecurity are linked to different types of mental health issues, unlike Bowlby’s general risk factor

Question 27

examples within the specificity hypothesis

Answer 27

resistant children (those who maximise emotions) might predict internalising problems

avoidant children (disinterested in being around others) might predict later externalising

disorganised attachment is a general risk factor for either internalising or externalising

Question 28

fearon (2010) meta-analysis on attachment and externalising

Answer 28

insecure children had elevated levels of externalising problems (d=0.31) compared to secure children, but this does not have specific patterns of association

associations between security and externalising were stronger in male children (d=0.18)

disorganised children had strong associations for developing externalising problems (d=0.27)

Question 29

groh (2012) attachment and internalising

Answer 29

insecure children were at higher risk of developing these, but only from a small effect (d=0.15) – not the biggest determinant of MH

disputes the specificity hypothesis, as avoidant children were at higher risk of internalising behaviours, and resistant children were no different from secure

disorganised attachment unrelated to internalising

Question 30

how do fearon and groh support the competence hypothesis?

Answer 30

as insecure attachment increases risk of MH problems

Question 31

alternative explanation for the correlation between attachment and MH

Answer 31

‘positive genetic transmission’, where caregivers are at genetic risk for MH problems which affects their parenting

Question 32

how can social competence be measured?

Answer 32

observing children’s interactions with peers, peer nominations to indicate their social network size, teacher reports, and reciprocated friendships

Question 33

groh (2014) social competence

Answer 33

secure children had higher levels of social competence (d=0.39), showing evidence of correlations between attachment security and positive social outcomes

Question 34

unclear directions between social competence and attachment?

Answer 34

1. are sociable children more likely to become securely attached?
2. is secure attachment causing children to be more sociable?

Question 35

deneault (2023) prosociality

Answer 35

small associations (d=0.19) between secure children and higher likelihood of engaging in prosocial behaviour, which improves relationships and social competence

Question 36

confounding factors of meta-analyses on attachment

Answer 36

temperament
potential genetic factors

Question 37

how did stams (2002) address potential confounds?

Answer 37

by studying predictors of social competence, internalising, and externalising behaviours in adoptive families

Question 38

stams (2002) results: temperament

Answer 38

temperament (negative affect and poor regulation) plays a moderate (r=0.22) role in predicting later social competence, internalising, and externalising

Question 39

stams (2002) results: sensitivity

Answer 39

sensitivity did not predict any of these when controlled for temperament

Question 40

stams (2002) results: attachment security

Answer 40

attachment security predicted these when controlling genetic confounds and temperament

secure children showed high levels of social competence compared to insecure (r=0.17)

Question 41

how did van ijzendoorn (2023) establish causal connections between caregiver sensitivity and behaviour?

Answer 41

intervention improved parental sensitivity (r=0.18) and child attachment security (r=0.23), but there was no clear effect on externalising behaviours (r=0.07)

Question 42

explanation for finding no effect on externalising behaviour (van ijzendoorn, 2023)

Answer 42

due to short follow-up period, as the effects of security take more time to emerge

Question 43

why is attachment security unlikely to be a necessary or sufficient cause of MH problems?

Answer 43

since multiple pathways exist
- equifinality
- multi-finality

influence of attachment on MH can be moderated by other factors

links may be non-linear and vary across different points in development

Question 44

equifinality

Answer 44

different risk factors leading to the same outcome

Question 45

multi-finality

Answer 45

a given risk factor gives rise to multiple different outcomes