attachment theory cont

Question 1

describe hyperactivating strategies and deactivating strategies in anxiously attached and avoidantly attached individuals

Answer 1

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

Question 2

what are the costs of hyperactivating and deactivating strategies?

Answer 2

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

Question 3

MIKULINCER ET AL, 2004

Answer 3

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

Question 4

ATTACHMENT SYSTEM ACTIVATION

Answer 4

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

Question 5

MIKULINCER ET AL, 2000

Answer 5

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

Question 6

ANXIOUS PATTERN OF ATTACHMENT SYSTEM ACTIVATION

Answer 6

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

Question 7

in what sense is the avoidant pattern of attachment system acitvation similar to that of securely attached people?

Answer 7

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

Question 8

in what sense is the avoidant pattern of attachment system activation different to that of securely attached people?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

APPRAISALS OF AVAILABILITY

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

ANXIOUS APPRAISALS OF AVAILABILITY

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

COLLINS AND FEENEY, 2004

Answer 11

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

Question 12

SECURE APPRAISALS OF AVAILABILITY

Answer 12

Working models…
- Faciliatate positive appraisals
Overlook or downplay instances of unresponsiveness

Question 13

AVOIDANT APPRAISALS OF AVAILABILITY

Answer 13

• 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

Question 14

PROXIMITY SEEKING IN SECURE INDIVIDUALS

Answer 14

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

Question 15

PROXIMITY SEEKING IN AVOIDANT INDIVIDUALS

Answer 15

• 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)

Question 16

SIMPSON ET AL, 1992

Answer 16

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)

Question 17

EXCESSIVE REASSURANCE SEEKING

Answer 17

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

Question 18

INTIMACY PROCESS MODEL:

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

INTIMACY PROCESS MODEL: ANXIOUS

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

SELF DISCLOSURE IN ANXIOUS INDIVIDUALS

Answer 20

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)

Question 21

SUPPORT SCENARIOS WITH ANXIOUS INDIVIDUALS

Answer 21

→ 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)

Question 22

FRALEY ET AL, 2006)

Answer 22

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

Question 23

INTIMACY PROCESS MODEL: AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT

Answer 23

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

Question 24

ACCORDING TO BOWLBY, WORKING MODELS NEED TO BE BOTH…

Answer 24

environmentally stable:
→ Sense of continuity despite fluctuations in environment

and….
Environmentally labile:
Help adapt to changes in environment and relationships with different people

Question 25

WHAT ARE THE TWO WAYS THAT WORKING MODELS SELF PERPETUATE?

Answer 25

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

Question 26

MCCLURE AND LYDON, 2014

Answer 26

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

Question 27

WITHIN PERSON VARIATION WORKING MODELS

Answer 27

• 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

Question 28

CHANGE TO WORKING MODELS OVER TIME

Answer 28

• 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)

Question 29

PARTNER BEHAVIOUR (TWO ELEMENTS)

Answer 29

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)

Question 30

ARRIAGA ET AL, 2014 - PARTNER BEHAVIOUR SHORT TERM AND OVER TIME

Answer 30

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

Question 31

TYPES OF SOCIAL SUPPORT

Answer 31

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

Question 32

LEVELS OF SUPPORT

Answer 32

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

Question 33

AVOIDANTS AND SOCIAL SUPPORT

Answer 33

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

Question 34

GRIME ET AL, 2015

Answer 34

• 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

Question 35

CONSISTENCY AND TURBULENCE

Answer 35

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