Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PSYC 474 > Lecture 11: Attachment Theory Part 2 > Flashcards

Lecture 11: Attachment Theory Part 2 Flashcards

1
Q

adult attachment interview findings for secure adults

A
  • A balanced, realistic view of early relationships
  • See attachment experiences as valuable & influential
  • Open, direct, and cooperative in their discourse
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

adult attachment interview

A
  • Participants are asked to discuss their relationship with their parents, choose adjectives that describe them, justify their choice, and speculate about their parents’ behaviour
  • Researchers are interested in not just the context but how the individual discusses these experiences
  • They try to infer the participants’ state of mind relative to attachment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

adult attachment interview findings for dismissing (avoidant) adults

A
  • Discomfort discussing childhood experiences
  • Unsubstantiated attempts to idealize or put positive spin on negative experiences
  • Deny the influence of early attachment relationships
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

adult attachment interview findings for preoccupied adults

A
  • Seem anxious and/or angry
  • Appear to still be enmeshed with these early relationships
  • Long-winded responses with signs of confusion & consistency
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

attachment styles as dimensions

A
  • Statistical analysis suggests that attachment is best characterized in terms of dimensions rather than types
  • Typological measures cannot account for variation among people within a category but such variation is important
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

two continuous dimensions of attachment

A

anxiety & avoidance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

anxiety dimension

A

items tap into dear or rejection & abandonment, exaggerated desire for closeness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

avoidance dimension

A

items tap into discomfort with closeness, emotional suppression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

control system model of attachment

A

threat monitoring -> attachment system activation -> attachment insecurity or security depending on whether the attachmetn figure is available

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

first phase of the control system model of attachment

A
  • Threat monitoring and appraisal
  • Can involve both internal and external events
  • Both physical and psychological
  • There are individual differences in threat detection and appraisal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

threat appraisal in anxiously attached individuals

A
  • Anxious attachment -> hyperactivating strategies
  • Heightened vigilance for possible threats
  • Exaggerated appraisals of threats (catastrophizing)
  • Rumination, difficulty disengaging from emotional hurt and negativity
  • High accessibility of negative emotional memories
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

attributions and attachment style

A
  • Participants were presented with vignettes depicting potentially negative partner behaviour
  • Individuals higher in attachment anxiety are more likely to make relationship-threatening attributions
  • They also experience more distress
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

perceptions of conflict and attachment style

A
  • Dating couples participated in a conflict discussion in the lab
  • Anxiously attached individuals reported more stress and anxiety
  • They also saw their partners andthe relationship less positively after the interaction
  • This was not accounted for by observers’ ratings of the interaction (i.e. it wasn’t because the interaction was more negative, it was just interpreted that way)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

anxiously attached people in daily life

A
  • Researchers measured affective reactions to perceptions of their partner’s behaviour in everyday life (event-contingent recording)
  • Individuals high in attachment anxiety had stronger negative affective reactions when they perceived the partner behaving less warmly than usual
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

threat appraisal in avoidantly attached individuals

A
  • Anxious attachment -> deactivating strategies
  • Attempt to minimize experiences that might lead to attachment system activation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

postemptive strategies

A

avoid retrieving, dwelling on, or elaborating on extant memories, insecurities, fears, etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

preemptive strategies

A
  • Deflect attention away from distress-provoking material, fail to encode it into memory
  • Ex. tuning out of a potentially distressing conversation, not getting into a relationship in the first place
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

memory encoding in avoidantly attached individuals study

A
  • Participants listened to an interview touching on several attachment themes, including the death of a family member
  • They completed two memory tests:
  • Cued-recall test (test of explicit memory)
  • Word fragment completion task (test of implicit memory)
  • Avoidantly attached individuals performed worse on both types of test
  • Deficiency persisted even when they were offered monetary rewards for accurate recall
  • This suggests that they aren’t encoding the information in the first place
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

sustainability of avoidants’ defence strategies

A
  • In certain contexts, avoidants can resemble securely attached individuals
  • But, some research suggests that defensive maneuvers can break down, especially under conditions of high stress
  • Ex. divorce, caring for a severely ill child
  • The inability to acknowledge distress may deprive one of the opportunity to benefit from social support
  • Defensive strategies appear to be cognitively & physiologically effortful
  • Ex. show higher levels of physiological arousal during AAI despite reporting an idealized view of their relationship with their parents
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

sustainability of avoidants’ defence strategies study

A
  • Participants were asked to recall a painful breakup or separation from a partner and then stop thinking about it
  • Normally we see a rebound effect
  • Under normal conditions, avoidantly attached people are good at avoiding the rebound effect
  • They also show high availability of positive and low availability of negative self-traits after thinking about separation
  • Added a cognitive load manipulation
  • Memorize & repeat a 1-digit number or a 7-digit number
  • Under high load, avoidantly attached individuals were no longer able to avoid the rebound of suppressed thoughts about separation
  • They can no longer maintain a defensively positive self-image
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

rebound effect

A

heightened intrusion of unwanted thoughts following suppression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

cognitive load

A

additional information that has to be held in working memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

downplaying rewards

A

Avoidants may maintain low perceptions of social reward to avert the pain of disappointment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

downplaying rewards study

A
  • Evaluate dating profiles
  • Manipulated the potential for intimacy: included a high responsiveness or low responsiveness target
  • Attachment avoidance negatively predicts reward potential for high but not low responsiveness target
  • Not getting the reward we expect is painful
  • By not getting their hopes up, they may preempt feelings of pain and disappointment that result when expectations for reward are not met
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

downplaying rewards in daily life

A

Deactivating strategies interfere with monitoring of the attachment figure’s availability -> increases the chance that signals of availability will be missed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

downplaying rewards in daily life ERP study

A
  • Event-contingent recording study of responses to partner’s communal behaviour: blunting of both negative and positive emotional reactions to partner behaviour
  • Not responding with negative affect when partner behaves less warmly, but also not responding to signs of the partner’s availability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

seeking and responding to support in secure adults

A
  • Believe that distress may be safely acknowledged and expressed
  • Learned that proximity-seeking results in support, protection, and relief of distress
  • Comfortable turning to others for support
  • Do not see it as a threat to their autonomy
  • Believe that distress is manageable and they are capable of dealing with it
  • They are able to engage in instrumental problem-solving
  • Overlook or downplay temporary instances of unresponsiveness or inability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

seeking and responding to support in anxiously attached adults

A
  • Hypervigilance for attachment figure availability
  • Biased perception in the direction of noticing or imaging insufficient availability or responsiveness
  • Perceived signs of the attachment figures’ unavailability amplify distress
  • Feel incapable of dealing with problems on their own
  • Ramp up efforts to gain the attachment figure’s care and protection (hyperactivation of primary strategy)
  • Excessive reassurance seeking
  • Discount such assurance because they were forced -> vicious cycle of doubt & demoralization, potentially culminating in depression
29
Q

excessive reassurance seeking

A

inappropriately strong tendency to seek assurances that one is valued and loved after such assurances have already been provided

30
Q

seeking and responding to support in avoidantly attached adults

A
  • Have learned that proximity-seeking may lead to punishment
  • Thus, proximity seeking is futile at best, dangerous at worst
  • They emphasize self-reliance
  • They tend to see reliance on others & autonomy as incompatible
31
Q

seeking and responding to support in avoidantly attached adults study

A

inhibited closeness-related goals and withdrew emotionally from partners on days they had insufficient independence or control in their relationships

32
Q

attachment style and stress study

A
  • Lab study of heterosexual couples
  • Women expected to participate in a mystery stress task
  • They were brought out to wait with their partner who had not been told anything about the task
  • Secure women: comfortable seeking support, explicit about expressing desire for support, amount of support sought increases in proportion with distress
  • Avoidant women: inhibited attention seeking as distress grows. The more strongly the attachment system is activated, the more defensive processes kick in
33
Q

anxious atachment and disclosure

A
  • Anxiously attached people focus on their own unfulfilled needs for closeness, fears, and vulnerabilities
  • Their self-disclosure tends to be negative in tone, also indiscriminate & inappropriate. It’s driven more by the desire to merge with another person, garner support, assuage the fear of rejection rather than focus on mutual enjoyment and reciprocity
34
Q

anxious attachment and responsiveness

A
  • Overinvolement in partner’s problems, compulsive caregiving
  • May become overwhelmed by their own distress
  • Do not match the level of care to the level of need (ex. catastrophizing)
  • More preoccupied with self-critical thoughts when interacting with someone who needs care
35
Q

avoidant atachment and disclosure

A
  • Desire to maintain interpersonal distance & keep the attachment system deactivated
  • Inhibition of emotional states incompatible with that goal
  • Associated with low levels of self-disclosure
  • Contributes to less satisfaction with social support
  • Less closeness after the 36-question self-disclosure task
36
Q

avoidant attachment & responsiveness

A
  • Also, seek less information about their partner
  • Uncomfortable with partner distress
  • Higher levels of partner distress are associated with greater withdrawal both in support provision and conflict contexts
  • Avoidant men also react with anger when their partner who is in need of support expresses high levels of distress
37
Q

Bowlby on stability vs. change

A

working models need to be both environmentally stable and environmentally labile

38
Q

stable

A

provide a sense of continuity despite some fluctuations in the environment

39
Q

labile

A

help adapt to changes in the environment and relationships with different people

40
Q

self-perpetuating nature of working models

A
  • Working models are schemas
  • Direct attention & influence the way we interpret store, and recall information
41
Q

self-perpetuating

A

provide continuity between early and later attachment-related feelings & behaviour

42
Q

perceptual confirmation in anxiously attached people

A

Being overly attentive to signs of inattention may perpetuate anxious individuals’ anxiety

43
Q

behavioural confirmation in avoidants

A

Avodiants’ cold behaviour may drive away partners, confirming the idea that others cannot be relied on

44
Q

behavioural confirmation research example

A
  • Examined the effects of attachment anxiety on first impressions (ex. Speed dating, one-on-one with attractive preferred sex confederate)
  • Found that individuals higher in anxious attachment tended to be perceived as less attractive and appealing by the people they interacted with
  • The effect was mediated by behavioural displays of anxiety
45
Q

within-person variation in attachment

A
  • There is within-person variation in attachment security across different attachment figures
  • The way you related to your mom may not be the same as the way you relate to your romantic partner
  • Most people possess relational schemas corresponding to a range of attachment orientations
  • Ex. even individuals with global avoidant or anxious orientation have access to secure representations
  • These representations can be made more accessible in certain contexts
46
Q

priming relational schemas

A
  • Making cognitive representations (schemas) temporarily more accessible
  • This can be done by having participants reflect on positive attachment memories, view images or words related to attachment security & attachment figure availability
  • Leads individuals to process information in ways consistent with activated schemas
47
Q

Security priming led participants to:

A
  • Recall more positive attachment-related words in a memory task
  • Endorse more positive relationship expectations
  • Experience less jealousy in response to a threatening hypothetical scenario
48
Q

social cognitive perspective on attachment

A

Global attachment style reflects the availability and accessibility of different kinds of relational schemas

49
Q

availability

A
  • Do you have a schema for a certain type of attachment relationship?
  • Participants with secure attachment styles are most likely to report secure relationships, participants with avoidant styles are more likely to report avoidant relationships, etc.
50
Q

accesibility

A
  • How easily do the representations come to mind?
  • Your attachment style predicted which patterns came to mind most easily
51
Q

change in attachment style over time

A
  • At least 40% of people experience changes in global attachment orientation over their lifetime
  • Particularly linked to major stressors or important life transitions
  • Major stressors & transitions may provide important diagnostic situations about others’ availability & responsiveness (for better or for worse)
52
Q

top-down processing in relationship science

A

how schemas shape information processing

53
Q

bottom-up processing in relationship science

A

partner’s behaviour

54
Q

role of partner behaviour

A

Trust toward partner and perceived goal validation is associated with lower insecurity

55
Q

trust

A

the sense that a partner can be relied on (safe haven)

56
Q

perceived goal validation

A

the sense that a partner supports one’s goal pursuits (secure base)

57
Q

trust and goal validation in the short term

A

trust may be particularly helpful for reducing attachment anxiety, while goal validation is important for reducing avoidance

58
Q

goal validation over time

A
  • Over time, goal validation is particularly important for anxious individuals
  • Building up a sense of self-efficacy = repairing the model of self
59
Q

trust over time

A
  • Over time, trust is particularly important for avoidant individuals
  • Teaching the individual that close others can be relied upon = repairing the model of others
60
Q

social support and attachment security

A

Responsive social support fosters attachment security

61
Q

Do avoidants benefit from receiving social support from their partners?

A
  • They may react defensively when receiving support (threat to autonomy & independence)
  • They may benefit from partner support in certain situations
  • Another important factor is the type of support provided
62
Q

emotional support

A

expressions of comfort & caring

63
Q

practical/instrumental support

A

provision of tangible resources & aid, problem-solving

64
Q

what support is best for avoidantly attached individuals?

A
  • Practical support may be more beneficial for avoidantly attached individuals
  • Unlike emotional support, it does not require discussion of emotions that avoidants are so uncomfortable with
65
Q

levels of support

A
  • Schemas are particularly influential when ambiguity is high (i.e. when levels of support are low)
  • Inadequate levels of perceived support confirm expectations that a partner cannot be depended upon -> threat responses, automatic defences are engaged
66
Q

support in the low-moderate range

A

increasing levels of practical support is associated with more distress, less self-efficacy, greater perceptions of partner control/criticism & greater interpersonal distancing by avoidant individuals

67
Q

support above the low-moderate range

A

Beyond average levels of support, increasing levels of partner support have the opposite effect

68
Q

levels of support study takeaways

A
  • High levels of support may break through avoidant defences by starkly contradicting negative expectations
  • This suggests that avoidants’ emphasis on independence & self-reliance is a defence mechanism
69
Q

consistency & turbluence and attachment security

A
  • Negative relationship events can undermine attachment security
  • Ex. chronic relationship difficulties, breakups
  • Consistency matters for fostering attachment security
  • Secure individuals expect stability & consistency over time
  • When they experience greater fluctuations in relationship-specific security, secure individuals experience the most pronounced declines in relationship satisfaction and most pronounced increases in relationship distress

PSYC 474 (39 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions