Attachment: Predictors and Consequences Flashcards
what should bowlby’s research not be limited to?
heterosexual mothers and their biological children, although this is the vast majority of studies
- Bowlby only discussed the importance of early caregivers towards attachment
what do national household statistics show?
- Tells us the majority of parents are in paid employment, the idea that mothers are the sole provider of care may no longer fit with out view of family
- However mothers still appear to do the majority of caring responsibilities
types of families in the 21st century
- 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
What do contemporary family types tell us
- Not all families in the uk are two parent households
- There is a changing demographic of family life/formation
fox (1991) characteristics of the caregiver
found 65.5% of children were securely attached to their fathers
– attachments can be formed outside of maternal relationships
ven den fries (2009) adoption studies
observed no difference in security of adopted and non-adopted children after 12 months, and slight evidence of lower security before 12 months
- Maybe because children after 12 months have a more prolonged exposure to adverse circumstances
no difference between security of foster children and biological children
golombok (1995) assisted reproduction
found no biological influence of security and representations of seperation anxiety in children, by studying samples from IVF and egg and sperm donation
mcconnachie (2010) LGBTQ families
heterosexual couples’ children had lower levels of secure attachment than gay or lesbian parents between 10-14 years
- helpful in advancing the rights of lgbtq families, informing law changes
what are contemporary family type studies evidence of?
- caregiving quality is more important for attachment than caregiver gender or sexual identity or biological relatedness
- there is still a lot of research to be done
- e.g. some cultures people live in multigenerational households so PCG can be a grandparent
sensitivity hypothesis
early attachment is dependent on caregivers’ responsiveness to signals
causes of variation in attachment are largely environmental due to attachment cues/communication
Understanding effect size
caregiver sensitivity (ainsworth, 1974)
refers to the ability to perceive and interpret infant signals, and to respond appropriately and promptly
- awareness of signals
- interpretation of signals
- responding appropriately
- responding promptly
what did menard (2002) claim developmental theories must be established by?
- observed variables must co-vary
- covariation must not be spurious
- causal factors must precede outcomes (temporal relationship )
What is an autoregressive longitudinal design
To rule out baseline levels of attachment, we need to measure attachment at the earlier time point as well
- By measuring both time points we can then say if sensitivity lead to change in attachment
- potentially rules out supiriousness
What is a cross-lagged longitutional design
This lets us work out which thing drives change in which thing
- does x lead to change in y or the other way around?
- to overcome this, we measure both things twice, comparing which one has the strongest effect to find out which causes which
- allows for casual factor precedes outcome
what are interventions longitudinal design
We do something in between the observation periods
- 1 group gets sensitivity training, other group gets nothing
- Follow up get measured on both measures so did training make parents more sensitive AND did it actually improve attachment security
- allows for us to make a casual developmental claim
ainsworth (1978) evidence of parental sensitivity being a primary determinant of attachment security
strong associations (r=0.,78) between sensitive caregiving and later attachment security but failed to find as big associations in future studies by lucassen (2011) (r=0.22)
opposes the idea that parental sensitivity is the primary determinant in predicting security
does temperament influence caregivers’ style of parenting?
- groh (2017) found the difference between secure and insecure in terms of temperament is small and significant
- When researchers removed the parent self rating studies they found the association between attachment security and temperament became non significant
- Found some kinds of attachment security are related to temperament (an interaction) but it is not an important element
is parental sensitivity an environmental influence on attachment security?
similar strength of associations between adoptive and biological parents, so yes there an association between sesnitivity and attachment security, with no spurious from temperment OR genetics
bakermans-kranenburg (2003) intervention meta-analysis on parental sesnitivity
interventions on parental sensitivity training improved caregiver sensitivity AND child attachment security (d=0.20), showing evidence of causality
- However it is a small effect, so it may not be a primary determinant of attachment security
why are some caregivers more sensitive than others?
-others due to inter-generational transmission of attachment (Verhage, 2016), where caregiver’s attachment security correlated with more sensitive caregiving
- in turn resulted in secure attachment in child
- found even in adoptive families
does sensitivity caregiving matter for attachment security?
yes, but this is not the primary environmental determinant
sensitivity hypothesis criticisms
sensitivity may not be unidimensional, instead made up of different things
also consider other factors, such as mind-mindedness, also associated with attachment and sensitivity
bulk of research on WEIRD participants
competence hypothesis
secure attachment leads to positive outcomes in a variety of domains
bowlby (1947) competence hypothesis
claimed prolonged maternal separation during the first 5 years of life is “foremost among the causes of delinquent character development”
ainsworth (1979) competence hypothesis
continued that secure attachments were the basis for forming positive future relationships
internalising behaviour
-inner-directed behaviour, usually the result of negative emotions
- e.g. look like anxiety, depression
externalising behaviour
aggression or defiance directed outwardly to others or the environment
- e.g. conduct disorder
how can early attachments matter for later outcomes?
impact on later mental health
impact on later relationships
how can negative WM become risk factor for MH problems?
- by failing to view self as worthy of love
- having negative expectations of others as being unreliable
- ,and low self-confidence and regulation upon stress
fearon (2010) and groh (2012) specificity hypothesis
as different types of insecurity are linked to different types of mental health issues, unlike Bowlby’s general risk factor
examples within the specificity hypothesis
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
fearon (2010) meta-analysis on attachment and externalising
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)
groh (2012) attachment and internalising
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
how do fearon and groh support the competence hypothesis?
as insecure attachment increases risk of MH problems but correlation isnt strong
SO, is attachment related to later mental health
insecurely attached is a risk factor for externalising problems, a small risk factor in internalising problems
- Avoidants elevated risk for internalised NOT externalised problems
- Resistant groups doesn’t really predict risk in either category
- Disorganised predictor for externalising
how can social competence be measured?
- by observing their ability to build and maintain relationships
- observing children’s interactions with peers, peer nominations to indicate their social network size, teacher reports, and reciprocated friendships
groh (2014) social competence
- secure children had higher levels of social competence (d=0.39), showing evidence of correlations between attachment security and positive social outcomes
- Tells us that the relationship a child had with their PCG sets them up for later social relationships beyond family
unclear directions between social competence and attachment?
- are sociable children more likely to become securely attached?
- is secure attachment causing children to be more sociable?
deneault (2023) prosociality
small associations (d=0.19) between secure children and higher likelihood of engaging in prosocial behaviour, which improves relationships and social competence
confounding factors of meta-analyses on attachment (social competence)
temperament
potential genetic factors
No baseline measure of MH
Specificity in meta analysis studies on social competence
It is a general risk factor, specific insecure categories don’t seem to have specific outcomes
how did stams (2002) address potential confounds for social competence, and mental health ?
by studying predictors of social competence, internalising, and externalising behaviours in adoptive families
(competance) stams (2002) results: temperament
temperament (negative affect and poor regulation) plays a moderate (r=0.22) role in predicting later social competence, internalising, and externalising
(compoetence) stams (2002) results: sensitivity
sensitivity did not predict any of these when controlled for temperament
( competence) stams (2002) results: attachment security
attachment security predicted these when controlling genetic confounds and temperament
secure children showed high levels of social competence compared to insecure (r=0.17)
shows competence hypothesis might be weakly supported but attachment security isnt a main determinant
( competence) how did van ijzendoorn (2023) establish causal connections between caregiver sensitivity and mental health?
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)
explanation for finding no effect on externalising behaviour in intervention study (van ijzendoorn, 2023)
due to short follow-up period, as the effects of security take more time to emerge
why is attachment security unlikely to be a necessary or sufficient cause of MH problems?
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
equifinality
different risk factors leading to the same outcome
multi-finality
a given risk factor gives rise to multiple different outcomes
