attachment theory cont Flashcards
describe hyperactivating strategies and deactivating strategies in anxiously attached and avoidantly attached individuals
Anxiously attached: hypervigilance for signs of threat
Avoidantly attached: opposite - try to avoid amount of information they take in and process
^ can collapse in high levels of stress
what are the costs of hyperactivating and deactivating strategies?
These strategies come at a cognitive cost:
- When something else takes up our cognitive resources, we make no longer be able to engage in these strategies
- Ex. Divorce (brinbaum et al, 1997), caring for severely ill child (berant et al, 2001)
Inability to acknowledge distress may deprive one of the opportunity to benefit from social support
MIKULINCER ET AL, 2004
Ps recalled a painful breakup or separation from partner and then stop thinking about it
Normally, we’d see a rebound effect = heightened intrusion of unwanted thoughts following suppression
Under normal conditions: avoidants are good at avoiding the rebound effect - high availability of positive and low availability of negative self traits after thinking of separation (inflation of self?)
- Can be seen on stream of consciousness task (writing down) and stroop task
BUT: after cognitive load manipulation, avoidants couldn’t avoid rebound nor maintain defensively positive self image
ATTACHMENT SYSTEM ACTIVATION
Apprailsal of threat - attachment system
In adults, may or may not lead to overt proximity seeking - psychological proximity…thoughts abt attachment figure
Should manifest in hightened accessibility of attachment figure thoughts
MIKULINCER ET AL, 2000
Ps primed with threat words and neutral works - then accessibility of attachment related thoughts tested through a lexical decision task - faster reaction to attachment words=more thoughts
Found that…. Compared to neutral words, threat related workds led to faster identification of proximity related words - regardless of attachment style - not the same effect for other people who aren’t attachment figures
ANXIOUS PATTERN OF ATTACHMENT SYSTEM ACTIVATION
high access to proximity related word even when primed with neutral words…chronic activation of the attachment system? High accessibility of proximity related worries compared to secures
Means that attachment system activation is linked to fears of rejection
in what sense is the avoidant pattern of attachment system acitvation similar to that of securely attached people?
resemble more securely attached individuals in their response
- Faster RTs for proximity word in stress but not neutral condition
Low accessibility to proximity worries when primed with stress or neutral word
in what sense is the avoidant pattern of attachment system activation different to that of securely attached people?
Diverged from secures:
- Low accessibility to proximity worries even when primed with attachment related threat word (secure individuals respond to threat word)
But… Again, when cognitive load was introduced………………..
Faster RTs for both proximity and distance related words when primed with stress word (now resemble anxious aprticipants)
Suggests: at preconscious level: attachment system activation is also related of rejection related worries
APPRAISALS OF AVAILABILITY
- Remember: social support interactions can be ambiguous and subject to different interpretations
Appraisals: biased by attachment history and expectations - working models of attachment act as the interpretive filters through which interactions are appraised
- direct attention, shape construals, organize info
Highly influential when ambiguity is high
ANXIOUS APPRAISALS OF AVAILABILITY
- More vigilant
- Biased towards noticing or imagiing insufficient availability or responsitiveness
○ Misinterpret pos. signs
More likely to detect real or imagined signs of inavailability or distance
- Biased towards noticing or imagiing insufficient availability or responsitiveness
COLLINS AND FEENEY, 2004
Attachment anxiety related to less positive rating and more negative rating of notes of support from their partner (controlling objective ratings)
….may respond negatively even to positive relationship events
- greater distress and guilt
- Less positive attributions (believing that partners behaviour reflects love and concern)
More negative attributions
SECURE APPRAISALS OF AVAILABILITY
Working models…
- Faciliatate positive appraisals
Overlook or downplay instances of unresponsiveness
AVOIDANT APPRAISALS OF AVAILABILITY
- Deactivating strategies interfere with monitoring unavailability
- Increases signs of availability will be miss
- Blunting of negative and positive emotional reactions to partner behaviour
So no response when partner is bad, but also no response when partner is good
PROXIMITY SEEKING IN SECURE INDIVIDUALS
believe that distress may be safely acknowledged and
expressed
- Proximity seeking results in support, protection, and relief
- Comfortable turning to others for support
- Don’t see it as a threat to their autonomy
- Believe that distress is manageable and they are capable of dealing with it
Able to engage in instrumental problem solving
PROXIMITY SEEKING IN AVOIDANT INDIVIDUALS
- Have learned that proximity seeking may lead to punishment (inattention, rejection, hostility)
- At best, proximity seeking is futile
- At worst, proximity seeking is dangerous
- Emphasis on self reliance
- Reliance on other and autonomy = incompatible
Ex. Diary study: inhibited closeness related goals and withdrew emotionally from partner on days they have insufficient independence or control in their relationships (overall, sibley, 2009)
SIMPSON ET AL, 1992
Secure women: comfortable seeking support, explicit about expressing desire for support, amount of support sought increases in proportion with distress
Avoidant: inhibited attention seeking as distress grows
Anxious: perceived signs of attachment figure’s unavailability amplify distress, feel incapable of dealing with problem on their own
- Ramp up efforts to gain attachment figure’s care and protection (hyperactivation of primary strategy)
- But…. Also experience deep ambivalence - want reassurance but fear rejection
Indirect support seeking tactics (sulking, pouting)
EXCESSIVE REASSURANCE SEEKING
inappropriately strong tendency to seek assurances that one is valued and loved after such assurances have already been provided
However….reassurances have been forced .. = vicious cycle of doubt and demoralization = potentially culminating in depression
INTIMACY PROCESS MODEL:
Motives needs goals and fears of individuals influence the disclosures they make to their partners and the interpretative filters both on their partners responses to their own disclosures and their partners disclosures.
INTIMACY PROCESS MODEL: ANXIOUS
- Focus on one’s own unfulfilled needs for closeness, fears, and vulnerabilities
intense self focus makes it difficult to attend to and decipher partner’s communitication and accurately interpret signals
Biased towards:
- Insufficient interest
- Negativity
SELF DISCLOSURE IN ANXIOUS INDIVIDUALS
tends to be negative in tone, also indiscriminate and inappropriate (too much, too soon)
Driven by desire to merge with another person, garner support, assuage fear of rejection rather than focus on mutual enjoyment and reciprocity (like securely attached individuals)
SUPPORT SCENARIOS WITH ANXIOUS INDIVIDUALS
→ Overinvolvement in partner’s problems, compulsive caregiving
→ May be overwhelmed by own distress
→ Don’t match level of care to level of need (catastrophizing)
More preoccupied with self critical thoughts when interacting with someone who needs care (mikuincer et al)
FRALEY ET AL, 2006)
Morph paradigm: movie of faces of neutral expression changes to an emotional one
Ps. Click key when their perceive onset of expression
Anxiously attached: click key earlier but make more mistakes when judging expressions…however, when they are required to watch movie to the end, they don’t make mistakes judging expressing
Heighted vigilance for emotional cues interferes with accuracy
INTIMACY PROCESS MODEL: AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT
Desire to maintain interpersonal distance and keep attachment system deactivated
- Inhibition of emotional state
- Low levels of self disclosure
- Less satisfaction with social support…because they don’t disclose
- Less closeness after 36 questions task
- Seek less information abt partner
- Uncomfortable with partner distress
○ Higher levels of partner distress associated with greater withdrawal both in support provision and conflict contexts
Avoidant men also react with anger when partner who is in need of support expresses high levels of distress
ACCORDING TO BOWLBY, WORKING MODELS NEED TO BE BOTH…
environmentally stable:
→ Sense of continuity despite fluctuations in environment
and….
Environmentally labile:
Help adapt to changes in environment and relationships with different people
WHAT ARE THE TWO WAYS THAT WORKING MODELS SELF PERPETUATE?
Perceptual confirmation:
- Being overly attentive to signs of inattention may perpetuate anxious individuals’ insecurity
Behavioural confirmation
Avoidants’ cold behaviour may drive away partners – confirming idea that others cannot be relied on
MCCLURE AND LYDON, 2014
Effects of attachment anxiety on first impressions…..
Individuals higher in anxious attachment are less likely to be chosen for future contact and rated as less attractive and appealing…effect mediated by behavioural displays of anxiety
WITHIN PERSON VARIATION WORKING MODELS
- Behaviour/attachment security differs across different attachment figures
○ Ex. The way you relate to your mom may not be the same as you relate to your romantic partner
Most people possess different schemas corresponding to a range of attachment orientations
- Everyone has access to all orientations and each one is made more accessible in certain contexts
Ex. Individuals w global avoidant or anxious orientation have access to secure representations
CHANGE TO WORKING MODELS OVER TIME
- 40% of people experience changes in global attachment orientation over lifetime
- Linked to major stressors or important life transitions
○ Health crises
○ Bereavement
○ Beginning or ending of important romantic relationships
○ Marriage or parenthood
Major stressors and transitions may provide important diagnostic situations about others’ availability and responsiveness (for better or for worse)
- Linked to major stressors or important life transitions
PARTNER BEHAVIOUR (TWO ELEMENTS)
What about bottom up processing??
Trust toward partner and perceived goal validation associated with lower insecurity
Trust= sense that partner can be relied on (safe haven)
Perceived goal validation = sense that partner supports one’s goal pursuits (secure base)
ARRIAGA ET AL, 2014 - PARTNER BEHAVIOUR SHORT TERM AND OVER TIME
short term: trust may be particularly helpful for reducing attachment anxiety; goal validation – avoidance
Anxious:
Over time, goal validation important for anxious individuals
– building up sense of self efficacy – repairing model of self
Avoidant:
Over time, trust particularly important for avoidant individuals
– teaching the individual that close others can be relied on – repairing model of other
TYPES OF SOCIAL SUPPORT
Emotional: expression of comfort and caring
Practical/instrumental support = provision of tangible resources and aid, problem solving
Practical support might be more beneficial for avoidantly attached individuals …doesn’t require addressing emotions, affection, intimacy, etc
LEVELS OF SUPPORT
When levels of support are low = more ambiguity = more room for schemas to shape perceptions
Inadequate levels of perceived support confirms expectations that partner cannot be depended on = threat responses, automatic defenses engaged
AVOIDANTS AND SOCIAL SUPPORT
Responsive social support=attachment security
Avoidants…
- May react defensively when receiving support
- May see support as a threat to autonomy and independence
However, in certain situations, may benefit from partner support
GRIME ET AL, 2015
- For avoidants high levels of support may “break through” avoidants defenses by starkly contradicting negative expectations
Suggests that avoidants’ emphasis on independence and self reliance is a defensive mechanism…want care and support but also want to protect themselves from hurt
CONSISTENCY AND TURBULENCE
Negative relationship events can undermine attachment security - e.g. chronic relationship difficulties, breakups
CONSISTENCY matters for fostering attachment security
Secure individuals expect stability and consistency over time. When they experience greater fluctuations in relationship specific security, they evince most pronounced declines in relationship satisfaction and most pronounced increases in relationship distress
