Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

PSYC 333 > Lecture 20 - Attachment and the Relational Self > Flashcards

Lecture 20 - Attachment and the Relational Self Flashcards

1
Q

The Attachment System
Overview

Functions - 3 main things
Components
Behaviors

A

Is a biological system, evolutionarily selected for to keep kids close to parents

Functions:
-proximity, secure base, safe haven

Components:

  • Behavioral strategies
  • Primary (secure)
  • Secondary (hyperactivation, deactivation)

Mental models of close relationships—expectations
about:
-Self worthy of love and affection?
-Others trustworthy and reliable?

Individual differences
Within humans people vary on anxiety and avoidance and these predict quite a bit

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

Correlates/consequences of

attachment

A
  • Parenting
  • Sexual behavior
  • Emotion regulation
  • Social support
  • Caregiving, including later life
  • Health
  • Psychopathology
  • Friendship networks
  • Singlehood
  • Prosocial behavior
  • Empathy
  • Conflict
  • Prejudice
  • Political orientation
  • Leadership
  • Power
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Sex differences in
attachment

Classic

A

Classic attachment theory is “sex neutral”

Supposed male/female kids face the same survival challenges and so, evolved the same way

Attachment system is evolved mechanism to
promote infants’ survival

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

Sex differences in
attachment

Adulthood

A

Worldwide, men have higher avoidance and
women have higher anxiety

Effect sizes small, even smaller in college samples

Associations make sense from evolutionary
perspective…

Reproductive stragies etc

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

Individual differences in
attachment as mating and
reproductive strategies

A

Avoidance

-Minimize commitment in 
context of pair-bonding
-Promote short-term mating
-Men gain larger 
reproductive benefits from 
sex with multiple partners
-Favor avoidance (slightly)

Anxiety

-Maximize investment from 
partners (and relatives)
-Women gain larger 
reproductive benefits from 
maximizing investments
-Respond with anxious 
strategies to promote 
continued investment
-Favor anxiety
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Sex differences in

attachment

A

Cross-cultural variation:

Sex differences largest in Western and Middle
Eastern countries

Differences smaller in places with high adversity,
mortality, and fertility:
Here, avoidances increases and anxiety decreases

In harsher environments, “short-term” / low
commitment strategies favored

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

Development of sex

differences

A

Sex differences should emerge as relevant
biological functions come on-line

No sex differences in infancy and early childhood

Picture changes in middle childhood (6-11 years)

Boys more avoidant, girls more anxious

North America, Europe, Israel, South Korea, China (global)

Developmental time point marked by
intensification of sex differences and
corresponding hormonal changes

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

Internal working models

What do they do?

A

“Interpretative filters” through which new
relationships are meaningfully understood and
construed

Based on early experiences with caregivers but
incorporate new relationship experiences

They can be changed but do show some stability

They can be different for different relationships

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

Are attachment systems accurate?

Do they last forever?

A

No! They can be biased

Poor behaviour

They are not permanent and continue to be informed by the environment

They are malleable

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

The development of adult

attachment

A

Attachment style reflects early caregiving
experiences

Prototype perspective (Fraley, 2002):

Individual differences driven by stable, latent
factor

Representations, procedural rules, behavior
strategies constructed in early childhood as an
adaptation to environment

Prototype influences interpersonal dynamics
throughout the life course and influences peoples expectations, how we interpret people’s actions, our behavior, emotions, and coping strategies.

Until recently, this has been difficult to test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Infant insecurity and
emotion regulation in
adulthood

A

Used data from the Minnesota longitudinal study

Prospective study

Strange situation assessed at 12 and 18 months

Only characterized into secure/insecure @ 12/18 months

Followed for many years

Video recorded conflict discussions with romantic
partner at 20, 23, 26, and/or 35 yrs

Coded discussions for emotional regulation strategy they used

Stable insecure (both readings were avoidant)

  • Lower balanced regulation
  • Higher hypo-regulation
    vs. stable secures

Unstable (one secure, one not reading) insecures (anxious):
-Greater hyper-regulation, exaggerating emotional expression and ruminating

THIS PROVIDES SOME EVIDENCE THAT PATTERNS ARE STABLE AND RELATE TO CHILDHOOD

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Longitudinal studies on attachment style

A

SOME EVIDENCE THAT PATTERNS ARE STABLE AND RELATE TO CHILDHOOD

The quality of early experiences relates to attachment style

BUT associations are small and there are inconsistent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Foundations are not fate

Plasticity in attachment

A

There are associations between early experience and attachment in adulthood

but the correlation is .15

These small effect sizes show this is not fate and can be shaped by multiple and even competing experiences

There is lots of variability and some people who have less care in childhood and will have increased security in adulthood

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What mechanisms underlie attachment plasticity?

A

Schemas.

It is helpful to think of attachment as schemas

When we experience stuff that contradicts our schemas we can ignore it to an extent but eventually we will update the schema

Relationship events could be a factor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Loss & the re-organization of the attachment system

A

Assess those that are applying for marriage license

80% report a secure attachment model - unsurprising that secures would be overrepresented in this population

Assessed later

Secures who remain in dating relationship
-80% remain secure

Secures who break up
-Only 50% report secure attachment model post
breakup

Attachment models sensitive to life events

LIFE EVENTS CAN INFLUENCE ATTACHMENT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Successful reorganization of the attachment system after a loss

A

When a breakup or loss of an attachment figure requires a reorganization of attachment system

A successful reorganization allows us to explore and find new attachments

We will never forget the other person but the thought does not bring extreme emotion

Possibly relies on creating meaning and narrative coherence for loss event

17
Q

Successful reorganization of the attachment system after a loss

Different patterns for anxiety and avoidance

A

In anxiety or avoidance there are more problems in reorganization after a loss

Anxiety
-Hyperactivation strategies:
-Maintain/regain felt security 
by re-engaging with former 
partner
-Try to reestablish by reengaging with partner and regain the attachment
-Increases distress
-Sustains and intensifies 
emotional distress
Avoidance
-Deactivation strategies to 
create emotional distance 
via suppression
-Suppression may be helpful 
in reducing short-term 
distress
-But may impede long-term 
recovery
18
Q

Within-person instability in attachment

A

There is variation in attachment in an individual

Even for those who do not experience loss
Stability & change

Assess people at 2 time points (T1, T2)

At Time 2
-70% classified with same attachment model
-30 % different
-Stability Kappa = .51 (fair, not good)
-Based on T1 continuous attachment, you can
correctly classify 63% at T2

What is going on???

Who is changing? (T1 to T2)
Time 2
Time 1 Same Different % Change

Secure 90 20 12
Avoidant 36 18 33
Anxious 16 20 55

SO ACTUALLY THE VARIATION IS MOSTLY IN THE INSECURE 2

INSECURES CHANGE, SECURES DO NOT

19
Q

General and
relationship specific
attachment

Study to explore this

A

Do people have specific styles with certain people / do these differ between people?

Bowlby says yes

List 10 most impactful relationships

Rate relationship in term of attachment models (like in vignettes before)

Also assess general attachment model—how you
are in relationships generally

Results showed

Irrespective of general style of attachment all people had different styles in different relationships

BUT whatever style you have, most relationships will be SECURE

It is not the majority of relationships that distinguish between secure and insecure people but rather they have MORE relationships of a specific type

SO those who are “anxious insecure” have a higher percentage of anxious relationships even though the majority of their relationships are secure.

Same for avoidant = the same

20
Q

Social cognitive conceptualization
of attachment

What can change accessibility of an attachment style?

A

Attachment is best thought of in these terms. It’s accessibility can be influenced by recency and frequency like any other schema.

Sometimes recency overrides frequency

So your “chronic” attachment style might not be selected if another style was recently activated

21
Q

Contextual activation of

attachment

A

You can in fact prime an attachment

This is useful as it allows researchers to make causal inferences

Prime warm/supportive vs. critical/judgmental
relationship models vs. control

You do this with a word/not word lexical task and in this you introduce warm/supportive words (G1) or critical/judgemental words (G2)

Women imagine themselves with unplanned
pregnancy

Attachment models should reduce distress

RESULTS

• Those primed with warm/supportive other
experienced less distress and more active coping

  • Responses independent of chronic attachment
  • What is available can be primed…
22
Q

General & relationship-specific attachment

A

(effects of) Relationship specific attachment

Secure with parents but insecure with peers and
romantic partners?

How to interpret change:

Overall, or what’s currently
active? At least some variance comes from what is currently active but how much?

In adulthood, recent (vs. more distal) experiences
may be what’s most important are

We do not exactly know the details

Global attachment:

(1) Many new experiences update the model
(2) Loss of a relationship can update the model

23
Q

The Relational Self

A

Self is inherently relational

Given the importance of significant others (SO) in
our life, and fundamental need for connection
and belonging, the self and personality are
shaped largely by experiences with SOs

Linkages in memory between SO representations
and the self that reflect knowledge about who
the self is in relation to the SO

When SO is activated, activation spreads to
those aspects of the self that are associated with
specific SO

Shift in affect, motivation, behavior

We “become” the self we are with SO

24
Q

CAPS and the relational self

A

Personality functioning best understood in terms of
‘if-then’ associations

If=situation

Then=behavior/response

Situations (ifs) are subjectively construed

Ifs trigger cognitive-affective units (encodings,
expectancies, feelings, goals)

These then give rise to behavioral responses

Cognitive and affective units determine/reflect the
“psychological situation” for the individual

If’ = situation = sig. other/self with sig. other

‘Then’ = behavior = typical pattern of relating to
sig. other (including roles, goals, self-regulatory
style, affect, etc.)

So CAPS explains this observation well

25
Q

The relational self and transference

A

Working self concept (Markus & Wurf, 1987):
-subset of self knowledge in working memory at any
given moment
-guides cognition, affect and behavior
-self varies as a function of the self-knowledge that is
currently active

What determines what is activated?
-Cues in the immediate situation (office, computer,
desk, etc. activate “professional self”)
-Relational self emerges by the triggering of
Transference

26
Q

Transference

A

Interpersonal situations trigger Transference

Cues associated with SO in new person (e.g.,
gesture, facial features, how s/he listens, hold’s
once gaze, etc.) activate:

Associated SO representation

Unique self-with-SO representation (ideographic)

Generic social categories, roles, identities (“older
sister”)

SO representation can be contextually activated
(above) but can be chronically accessible

Contextual activation > variability in self/personality

Chronic activation > stability in self/personality

27
Q

Transference paradigm

A

Session 1

Name and describe Sig Other—7 positive and 7 negative descriptors. Make them very specific to the person in question

ID irrelevant adjectives
Session 2 (“unrelated” - told so but not - and several weeks later)

Given descriptive sentence about new person
you’re going to meet
G1: Resemblance: some sentences taken from
G2: Session 1
response (“applicability-based cues”)

No resemblance: some sentences taken from yoked
participant in experimental condition (stimuli content
perfectly controlled)
-This was using data from someone else’s significant other so “yoked” from another ptpt. This is done cos someone may have weird SOs so this overall will balance and control for this

28
Q

Evidence for Transference

A

In G1 (resemblance condition)

(1) Inferences about and memory for new person
based on stored knowledge of SO; likes them more
(2) Remembers being exposed to Sig Other descriptors of their SO that
were not presented in session 2
(3) Evaluation of new person based on SO
-Like new person more when he/she resembles
positive SO

Triggering does not have to be conscious

Works when cues about new person presented
subliminally

29
Q

Effects of Transference

A
  • Memory
  • Liking
  • Acceptance expectations (vs. rejection)
  • Desire to be emotionally close
  • Self-concept/self-evaluation
  • Emotions
  • New other’s behavior (expressed positive affect)
30
Q

Facial feature resemblance

elicits transference effect

A

Session 1

(1) Describe SO (7 pos, 7 neg, 12 irrelevant
descriptors)
(2) Describe “who you are with SO” (rate attributes)
(3) Rate 200 faces for resemblance to SO

Session 2: Meet “University Buddy”

Given a photo of them beforehand.
Photo resembles SO (G1) or not (g2)

RESULTS
Outcomes

Liking: own > yoked
(Preferred instinctively the photos of people that resembled their SOs vs those that resembled someone else’s (another ptpt)

Inferences:
-given list of descriptors
-rated SO descriptors higher in own vs. yoked
condition
(anticipated the new person would be like their SO when the photo resembled them vs when it resembled someone else’s SO)

Self-concept (make self ratings “at this moment”)
-Compared session 1 and session 2 self assessment
measure of Big Five personality domains
-More congruent in own vs. yoked condition
More similar to how they said they were when with their SO at time 1 in G1 thgan in G2

31
Q

“My advisor & the pope are
watching me from the back of my mind”

Transference applies to a broad array of relationships and not just attachment ones

A

Transference applies to a broad array of relationships and not just attachment ones

• Graduate students and
postdoctoral fellows
• Write key words for
recent research ideas…

In phase 1 subliminally primed,

G1 Picture of disapproving, stern faculty
G2 Picture of warm supporting faculty

Given one of their research ideas and asked to rate ut on many indices.

Rated higher in the warm face condition than in the stern one

32
Q

If you activate a secure relationship

A

you act secure, activate an insecure one, ac insecure

33
Q

Summary

A

• Attachment models/relational schemas are “interpretative filters” through which new
relationships are meaningfully understood and
construed

• Attachment models/Self-with-Sig Other can be
transiently activated, leading to assimilative processing

  • Chronic and contextually activated
  • What matters is what model is activated now as this determines how you will act/see yourself/evaluate things etc

PSYC 333 (26 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions