Lecture 2 Flashcards
Attachment I
What is the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)?
Form and content of recollections about early relationships reveal individual differences in attachment representations
standardised interview protocol with 15 questions (60-120 minutes)
verbatim transcripts scored using manual (reflection- making sense of experience; coherence-evidence, consistency)
What are examples of questions used in an AAI?
Describe your relationship with your parents as a young child
Choose five adjectives that reflect your relationship with your mother/father
Are there any memories or incidents that come to mind with respect to [adjective]?
When you were upset as a child what would you do?
How do you think your experiences with parents have affected your adult personality?
Evaluate AAI
Is the AAI reliable?
* Test-retest reliability (N=83 parents): 78% same category (k = .63) (Bakermans-Kranenburg & Van Ijzendoorn, 1993)
- Test-retest reliability (N=59 young adults): 90% same category (k = .79) (Sagi et al., 1994)
Is the AAI valid?
- Autobiographical memory, IQ and social desirability were not associated with attachment classification (Bakermans-Kraneburg & Van Ijzendoorn, 1993; Sagi et al., 1994)
Describe the Child Attachment Interview (CAI) (Goetz et al., 2008)
- perceptions of attachment figures’ current availability
- separate representations for each figure
- developmentally-appropriate scaffolding
*non-verbal and verbal information used in analysis of narratives
What are examples of questions used in a CAI?
- tell me about the people in your family
- tell me three words to describe your relationship with your mum
- what happens when your mum gets cross with you
Evaluate CAI
reliability
*high inter-rater reliability (even with naive coders) (r = .81-.88)
*test-retest (3-month and 12-month):
classifications (3 mths)
k = .81 mother / .52
fathers
classifications (12 mths)
k = .74 mother / .56
father
validity
*attachment classification unrelated to age of SES
*attachment classification unrelated to IQ, language ability
*clinically referred children show higher levels of insecure attachment
*links with internalising/externalising (Madigan et al., 2016)
What was found about universality and normativity?
*all infants show attachment behaviours and a preferential bond with one or more caregivers (over strangers)
*secure attachment is the norm is non-threatening situations: it allows for exploration
*majority of studies on attachment confined to north america and europe
*emphasis on role of single caregiver (mother) and independence of child
Universality does not preclude culture-specific patterns (Mesman et al. 2016) : True or False
True
- Rates of insecure types of attachment vary considerably between countries
- Primary attachment figure may vary in cultures with multiple caregivers
- Form of attachment/exploration behaviour varies (e.g., handshaking as proximity seeking behaviour)
What is the prototype account of continuity and change?
*early caregiving experiences give rise to attachment representations
*these ‘working models’ persist over time and shape interpersonal with others
What were the criticisms for universality and normativity?
- Focus on dyadic bonds
- Focus on elaborate conversation and interaction as expression of intimate dyadic bond
- Focus on autonomous child, who takes the lead in interactions
What is the revisionist account of continuity and change?
*early caregiving experiences give rise to attachment representations
*changes in caregiving experiences can lead to updated/revised representations
What did Opie et al., (2021) discover in their meta-analysis?
79 samples
Moderate correlations between T1 and T2 classifications
Stability of classifications
* T1 Secure -> T2 Secure
(67%)
* T1 Avoidant -> T2 Avoidant (25%)
* T1 Resistant -> T2 Resistant (28%)
* T1 Disorganised -> T2 Disorganised (34%)
What occured in Walters (2000) and Groh (2014) studies?
used 50 infants (age 2)
followed them up to about age 20.
moderate correlation of 0.4.
this suggested that how you performed on the strange situation was a pretty good indicator of how you would perform on the adult attachment interview 20 years later.
there are very few people in the insecure categories (due to small sample size)
hence, Groh et al 2014
larger study with a thousand young people in the US
they found that 60% of children stay secure
only a third of the avoidant stay avoidant or dismissing
only 1.5% of the resistant were later classified as preoccupied
only 2.7 % of them went from disorganised to unresolved
A correlation of 0.01 which means zero correlation
this tells us that the children’s performance in the strange situation at age 15 months was not at all reliable predictor of how they did on the adult attachment interview
What does the revisionist perspective say?
The revisionist perspective says that if you grow up in a stable environment - (whether it’s good or bad), Your attachment will stay the same
But if your circumstances with that caregiver change, then your attachment will change
insecure to secure - improvement
secure to insecure - declining
What is the lawful discontinuity concept in the revisionist perspective?
Compared with Stable Secure (Secure-Secure)
Insecure -> Insecure
* Lower initial levels of parental sensitivity (early and middle childhood)
* Greater declines in parental sensitivity (early childhood)
Secure -> Insecure
* Lower initial levels of parental sensitivity (early and middle childhood)
* Greater declines in parental sensitivity (early and middle childhood)
* Higher levels of negative life events (e.g., death, financial issues)
Compared with Stable Insecure (Insecure-Insecure)
Insecure -> Secure
* Higher levels of parental sensitivity in middle childhood.
