Lecture 20 - Attachment and the Relational Self Flashcards
The Attachment System
Overview
Functions - 3 main things
Components
Behaviors
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
Correlates/consequences of
attachment
- 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
Sex differences in
attachment
Classic
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
Sex differences in
attachment
Adulthood
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
Individual differences in
attachment as mating and
reproductive strategies
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
Sex differences in
attachment
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
Development of sex
differences
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
Internal working models
What do they do?
“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
Are attachment systems accurate?
Do they last forever?
No! They can be biased
Poor behaviour
They are not permanent and continue to be informed by the environment
They are malleable
The development of adult
attachment
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
Infant insecurity and
emotion regulation in
adulthood
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
Longitudinal studies on attachment style
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
Foundations are not fate
Plasticity in attachment
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
What mechanisms underlie attachment plasticity?
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
Loss & the re-organization of the attachment system
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
Successful reorganization of the attachment system after a loss
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
Successful reorganization of the attachment system after a loss
Different patterns for anxiety and avoidance
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
Within-person instability in attachment
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
General and
relationship specific
attachment
Study to explore this
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
Social cognitive conceptualization
of attachment
What can change accessibility of an attachment style?
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
Contextual activation of
attachment
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…
General & relationship-specific attachment
(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
The Relational Self
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
CAPS and the relational self
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
The relational self and transference
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
Transference
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
Transference paradigm
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
Evidence for Transference
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
Effects of Transference
- Memory
- Liking
- Acceptance expectations (vs. rejection)
- Desire to be emotionally close
- Self-concept/self-evaluation
- Emotions
- New other’s behavior (expressed positive affect)
Facial feature resemblance
elicits transference effect
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
“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
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
If you activate a secure relationship
you act secure, activate an insecure one, ac insecure
Summary
• 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
