Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psyc 474 > Oct 3 > Flashcards

Oct 3 Flashcards

1
Q

attachment theory

A

influential framework for understanding the emotional bonds we form with our closest others

experiences we have with our closest others (typically child parent beginning in infancy) shape our social & emotional development and future relationships

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

2 components to attachment theory

A
  1. normative development & functioning of the attachment system

^universal, present in all people

  1. individual differences in how the attachment system operates
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

behaviourist perspective on love

A

argues that all human and animal behaviour can be explained in terms of CONDITIONING

(associations made between two events)

thoughts and feelings are seen as irrelevant

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

when did school of behaviourism dominate?

A

dominated thinking and research in psychology

for first half of 20th century

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

Gordon Allport quote on behaviourism and psychology circa 1950

A

“a flight from tenderness”

ignoring fundamental human experiences like love and tenderness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

behaviourism: why do infants cling to their moms?

A

because they’ve come to associate the mother with FOOD and OTHER MATERIAL REWARDS

but how to explain the lifelong, unrelenting persistence of love?

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

harry harlow challenged…

A

the behaviourist perspective which prevailed at the time

thought we should scientifically study LOVE and AFFECTION

point of departure for the study of love

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

what was the point of departure for the study of love?

A

Harry Harlow’s study of the affectionate bond of a child for its mother

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

harlow monkeys: surrogate mother as source of security

A

faced with novel, fear-producing situations, infants PREFER to cling to the CLOTH, not the wire lactating surrogate

use her as a SECURE BASE for exploration

high levels of distress in unfamiliar situations when cloth mother absent

having wire mother present doesn’t help

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

revolutionizing childcare

A

with emerging understanding of germs, utmost priority was placed on SANITATION and CLEANLINESS

  • cuddling babies seen as UNHYGIENIC & DANGEROUS

despite greatly improved sanitary conditions in orphanages and hospitals, MORTALITY and MORBIDITY rates for young children was stubbornly high

as was development of MENTAL HEALTH issues

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

behaviourist perspective on childcare

A

childcare viewed in terms of “training”, “stimuli” and “conditioned responses”

  • picking up a crying baby is conditioning them to be whiny
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Jhn Watson (behaviourist) thoughts on maternal affection

A

that it’s dangerous

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

john bowlby’s attachment theory

A

observations of homeless children

warm, intimate and continuing relationship with the mother (or another caregiver) is ESSENTIAL for healthy child development

took EVOLUTIONARY perspective

^ infants can’t survive without caregiver to protect them from harm - some MECHANISM must be in place to KEEP INFANTS CLOSE to caregivers

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

john bowlby proposed that all humans are born with…

A

an ATTACHMENT BEHAVIOURAL SYSTEM

conceptualized attachment behavioural system as akin to a control system

like a THERMOSTAT regulating room temp - but instead of temp, it regulates SAFETY

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

what does the attachment behavioural system regulate?

A

safety

  1. comparison to set point
  2. controller
  3. sensor

a. error

b. feedback

c. input

d. feedback

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

attachment behavioural system is composed of…

A

proximity seeking behaviours

they are triggered when caregiver leaves - feeling of danger

and then they evaporate when person feels secure again

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

john bowlby’s attachment theory (1969) in a nutshell

A

posits the existence of a universal, evolved biobehavioural system (attachment system)

that motivates maintenance of proximity to caregivers (attachment figures)

in infancy/childhood, thus promoting survival

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

attachment figure hallmarks

A
  1. proximity seeking
  2. safe haven
  3. secure base
  4. separation distress
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

proximity seeking

A

attachment figure is the person you go to

esp when in need/distress

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

safe haven

A

attachment figure provides protection, comfort, support

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

secure base

A

attachment figure allows one to pursue non-attachment goals in safe environment

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

separation distress

A

actual/expected separation from attachment figure evokes strong feelings of distress

defining feature of attachment relationship

we’re drawn to our attachment figures not only by the REWARDs of their company, but by the PAIN of SEPARATION from them

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

response to separation

A
  1. PROTEST
    - acute distress, desperate attempts to re-establish contact
    - crying, clinging, calling, searching
    - generally rejecting of contact with others
  2. DESPAIR
    - preoccupation with caregiver still evident
    - depressed mood
    - hopeless/withdrawn
  3. DETACHMENT
    - may begin to show interest in other things/people
    - often appears listless & apathetic if reunited with caregiver
    - may exhibit anger
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Mary Ainsworth

A

colleague of Bowlby

made crucial psychometric and empirical contributions

put the theory to the test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Mary Ainsworth was concerned not only with…

A

WHETHER children were attached

but also with:

  1. HOW they were attached
  2. the MATERNAL FACTORS that predicted this
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

resistant/ambivalent response in strange situation

A
  1. clingy baby
  2. highly distressed by mom’s departure
  3. continues to cry and exhibit distress when contact is restored
  4. contradictory behaviour toward mother (tries to get close, but sometimes shows anger/resistance)
  5. no interest in exploration, not able to use mom as secure base
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

avoidant response in strange situation

A
  1. sullen baby
  2. appears indifferent to mother upon her return
  3. may play with toys but doesn’t actively involve mom as secure babies do
  4. further research identified signs of distress (elevated heart rate)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

prevalence: madigan et al meta-analysis

A

meta-analysis of the first 20 000 strange situation procedures

51.6% secure

14.7% avoidance

10.2% resistant/ambivalent

23.5% disorganized (lack of coherent attachment style)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

antecedents of secure pattern

A

history of positive interactions with a responsive caregiver

  1. bids for proximity and reassurance = sensitively & consistently attended to
  2. learns that primary attachment strategy (seeking proximity to caregiver when in distress) is safe and effective
  3. can bravely explore world because mom will be there if trouble arises
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

antecedents of insecure pattern

A

stems from deficits in caregiving

specific differences for avoidant and anxious/ambivalent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

antecedents of anxious/ambivalent pattern

A

caregiver is INCONSISTENT

leads to HYPERACTIVATION of attachment system

ie. if I ramp up my bids for proximity, maybe caregiver will respond

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

antecedents of avoidant pattern

A

caregiver is REJECTING, discourages closeness

leafs to DEACTIVATION of attachment system

ie. if I don’t come off as too needy, maybe the caregiver won’t reject me

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

internal working models

A

through attachment interactions, develop SCHEMAS or INTERNAL WORKING MODELS of:

  1. themselves
  2. attachment figures
  3. attachment relationships
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

“working” component of internal working models

A

“working”:

  • allows them to STIMULATE/PREDICT likely outcomes of attachment behaviours
  • provisional/subject to UPGRADING
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

internal working models include…

A
  1. specific AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MEMORIES
  2. GENERALIZED BELIEFS about oneself, attachment figures & close relationships
  3. PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE (how to regulate emotions & behave in close relationships)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

2 models within internal working models

A
  1. MODELS OF OTHERS
    - representations of attachment figures’ responses
    - “can others be relied on?”
  2. MODELS OF SELF
    - reps of one’s own efficacy
    - “am I lovable?”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

internal working models organize…

A

ORGANIZE attachment knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

internal working models guide…

A

GUIDE subsequent interactions with attachment figures as well as other people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

internal working models bias…

A

BIAS the way we interpret info & ENCODE it into memory

“tolerably accurate reflections of what actually happened” - Bowlby

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

attachment beyond childhood

A

Bowlby: the attachment system REMAINS ACTIVE “from the cradle to the grave”

“to remain within easy access of a familiar individual known to be willing and able to come to our aid in an emergency is clearly good insurance policy - whatever our age”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

airport study - proximity seeking

A

proximity seeking under threat

ie. couple separating in airport more likely to maintain physical contact (mutual gaze, touching, talking intently) if securely attached

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

separation distress past childhood

A

experience intense anger, anxiety, sadness in response to actual or perceived threats to close relationships

bereavement is a universally painful experience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

safe haven past childhood

A

mere presence of a close relationship partner can alleviate distress in the lab and real life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

secure base past childhood

A

when Ps perceive romantic partners as more supportive, report greater sense of independence, self-efficacy, more autonomous goal exploration, more likely to achieve goals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

differences in adulthood to childhood attachment

A
  1. individuals OTHER THAN PARENTs take role of attachment figures (romantic partners, close friends)
  2. PSYCHOLOGICAL (not just physical) proximity
  3. THRESHOLD for attachment system activation is HIGHER
  4. become more capable of SELF-SOOTHING (internalized positive self-reps)
  5. MUTUALITY (care seeking AND caregiving)
  6. SEXUALITY
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

3 categories percentages - attachment in adults

A

similar patterns of attachment in adults as in children

3 category traditional measure:

56% secure

19% anxious

25% avoidant

later distinguished between DISMISSING and FEARFUL avoidant types

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

3 category traditional model later changed…

A

to distinguish between dismissing and fearful avoidant types

dismissing: high avoidance, LOW ANXIETY

fearful: high avoidance, HIGH ANXIETY

  1. secure
  2. dismissing
  3. fearful
  4. preoccupied
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

secure person thought process

A

“it’s easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I’m comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or having others not accept me”

low anxiety, low avoidance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

preoccupied person thought process

A

“I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I’m uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them”

high anxiety, low avoidance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

fearful person thought process

A

“I’m uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others”

high avoidance, high anxiety

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

dismissing person thought process

A

“I’m comfortable without close emotional relationships. It’s very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me”

high avoidance, low anxiety

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

behavioural assessment

A

adult attachment interview

  1. discuss relationship with parents
  2. choose adjectives that describe them
  3. justify choices
  4. speculate about parent’s behaviour
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

adult attachment interview - what are we interested in?

A
  1. CONTENT of answers
  2. also HOW individual discusses these experiences

try to infer STATE OF MIND relative to attachment

  • are answers (IN)COHERENT? (IN)CONSISTENT?
  • are there signs of EMOTIONAL DISORGANIZATION?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

secure - adult attachment interview

A

BALANCED, REALISTIC view of early relationships

see attachment experiences as valuable & influential

open, direct & co-operative in their disclosure

don’t idealize or villainize their parents

55
Q

dismissing - adult attachment interview

A

DISCOMFORT discussing childhood experiences

unsubstantial attempts to IDEALIZE or put positive SPIN on negative experiences

DENY influence of early attachment relationships

^ claim early experiences don’t significantly affect them anymore

56
Q

preoccupied - adult attachment interview

A

seem ANXIOUS and/or ANGRY

appear STILL ENMESHED with these early

LONG-WINDED, signs of confusion & inconsistency

struggled to provide a coherent narrative

57
Q

statistical analysis suggests that attachment is best characterized by…

A

DIMENSIONS rather than types

typological measures can’t account for VARIATION among people WITHIN a category

and such variation is important

ie. people on dimensions may be very close by, but placed in different categories because of type division

58
Q

later measures like the Experiences in Close Relationships scale…

A

measure attachment on TWO CONTINUOUS DIMENSIONS

  1. anxiety
  2. avoidance
59
Q

experiences in close relationships scale: anxiety

A

items tap into:

  1. FEAR of REJECTION & ABANDONMENT
  2. exaggerated desire for CLOSENESS
60
Q

experiences in close relationships scale: avoidance

A

items tap into:

  1. discomfort with closeness
  2. emotional suppression
61
Q

experiences in close relationships scale: anxiety subscale examples

A

i worry about being rejected or abandoned

my desire to be very close sometimes scares people away

i resent it when my relationship partners spend time away from me

if i can’t get a relationship partner to show interest in me, I get upset or angry

62
Q

experiences in close relationships scale: avoidance subscale examples

A

I prefer not to show others how I feel deep down

just when someone starts to get close to me, I find myself pulling away

I try to avoid getting too close to otheers

I don’t feel comfortable opening up to others

63
Q

if attachment figure isn’t available when attachment system is activated, what happens?

A

two options

  1. hyperactivating strategies
  • occurs when proximity seeking may be a viable option
  • anxious-ambivalent
  1. deactivating strategies
  • when proximity seeking isn’t a viable option
64
Q

threat appraisals

A

first phase of of control-system model of attachment: threat monitoring & appraisal

a. internal (thoughts) or external events

b. physical or psychological threats

c. attachment-related or attachment-unrelated

INDIVIDUAL DIFFS in threat detection and appraisal

65
Q

anxious attachment - hyperactivating strategies

A
  1. heightened vigilance for possible threats
  2. exaggerated appraisals of threats (catastrophizing)
  3. rumination, difficulty disengaging from emotional hurt and negativity
  4. highly accessible negative emotional memories
66
Q

attributions: Ps presented with vignettes depicting potentially negative partner behaviour

A

ie. “your partner wanted to spend the evening by themselves”

individuals higher in ATTACHMENT ANXIETY:

  1. more likely to make RELATIONSHIP-THREATENING attributions
  2. reported GREATER DISTRESS

ie. “my partner’s losing interest in me”

versus

“my partner’s tired and just needs time to relax at home”

67
Q

lab study: perceptions of conflict

A

dating couples participated in conflict discussions in the lab

ANXIOUSLY ATTACHED individuals reported more:

  1. STRESS and ANXIETY
  2. saw partners and relationship LESS POSITIVELY after interaction
68
Q

lab study: perceptions of conflict - anxiously attached individuals reports…

A

of stress, anxiety and less positive perception of relationship after conflict discussion

are not accounted for by…

OBSERVERS’ RATINGS OF THE INTERACTION

means that negative perceptions of partner aren’t because the interaction was actually more negative

rather it was INTERPRETED more negatively - attributions are at work

69
Q

goal of avoidant attachment pertaining to the attachment system

A

to keep the attachment system DEACTIVATED

attempt to minimize experiences that might lead to attachment system activation

  1. POST-EMPTIVE STRATEGIES
  2. PRE-EMPTIVE STRATEGIES
70
Q

avoidant attachment: post-emptive strategies

A

avoid retrieving, dwelling on, elaborating on…

extant memories, insecurities, fears etc

71
Q

avoidant attachment: pre-emptive strategies

A

deflect attention away from distress-provoking material

fail to encode it into memory

ie. tuning out potentially distressing convos

ie. not getting into relationship in the first place

72
Q

pre-emptive strategies: lab study setup

A

Ps listened to interview touching on several attachment themes, including death of family member

completed two memory tests

  1. word fragment completion (test of implicit memory of interview)
  2. cued-recall test (test of explicit memory of interview)
73
Q

pre-emptive strategies: lab study results

A

avoidantly attached individuals show WORSE PERFORMANCE on BOTH TESTS

deficiency persisted even when monetary award for accurate recall was offered

^suggests they may not be encoding the info in the first place

74
Q

can avoidantly attached individuals be like secure ones?

A

yes, in certain contexts they can resemble securely attached individuals

but some research suggests that defensive maneuvers can BREAK DOWN - esp under conditions of HIGH STRESS

like DIVORCE, caring for severely ILL CHILD

75
Q

avoidantly attached individuals: inability to acknowledge distress…

A

may deprive one of the opportunity to benefit from social support

defensive strategies also appear to be COGNITIVELY & PHYSIOLOGICALLY EFFORTFUL

ie. show higher levels of physiological arousal during AAI despite reporting idealized view of relationship with parents

76
Q

study: Ps asked to recall painful breakup/partner separation and then STOP thinking about it

A

normally, see a REBOUND EFFECT: heightened intrusion of unwanted thoughts following suppression

under normal conditions, avoidants are GOOD at avoiding the rebound effect

(can see this on a stream of consciousness task and implicit thought activation task)

76
Q

avoidants: after thinking of separation, show…

A

HIGH AVAILABILITY OF POSITIVE and LOW AVAILABILITY of negative self traits

inflated self image in response to painful attachment experiences

77
Q

study: Ps asked to recall painful breakup/partner separation and then STOP thinking about it - COGNITIVE LOAD manipulation SETUP

A

added cognitive load manipulation

(additional info had to be held in working memory)

LOW LOAD: memorize and repeat 1 digit number

HIGH LOAD: memorize and repeat 7 digit number

78
Q

study: Ps asked to recall painful breakup/partner separation and then STOP thinking about it - COGNITIVE LOAD manipulation RESULTS

A
  1. under high load, NO LONGER ABLE TO AVOID REBOUND of suppressed thoughts about separation
  2. can also no longer maintain DEFENSIVELY POSITIVE SELF-IMAGE

so works in short term, but not long term
^ why caring for ill child/going through divorce is more harmful for avoidants

79
Q

how do avoidants avert pain of disappointment?

A

by maintaining low perceptions of social reward

80
Q

avoidants downplaying reward study setup

A

had to evaluate dating profiles - manipulated potential for intimacy

  1. high-responsiveness target

“when i’m dating someone, I really care about putting in the effort and making it work…that means paying attention to my girlfriend and getting to know who she really is as a person”

  1. low-responsiveness target

“I like to keep conversations light and not too serious…I deal with enough of that stressful stuff at work. who needs that drama in their relationship?”

81
Q

avoidants downplaying reward study results

A

attachment avoidance negatively predicts reward potential for HIGH but not for LOW responsiveness target

not getting the reward we expect is painful

by not getting their “hopes up” may PRE-EMPT feelings of pain and disappointment that result when expectations for reward aren’t met

defensive mechanism that only happens when hurt of unfulfilled intimacy is a REALISTIC THREAT - but when partner doesn’t seem like they can provide intimacy, not as much of a threat

82
Q

avoidants downplaying reward study: as attachment avoidance increases…

A

the perceived intimacy potential of the high responsiveness target decreases

83
Q

in daily life…deactivating strategies interfere with monitoring of attachment figure’s (un)availability

A

increases chances that SIGNALS OF AVAILABILITY will be MISSED

84
Q

Sadikaj et al - event-contingent recording study of responses to partner’s communal behaviour

A

BLUNTING of both NEG and POS emotional reactions to partner behaviour

a. not responding with negative affect when partner behaving less warmly

b. also not responding to signs of partner’s availability

85
Q

securely attached people believe that distress…

A
  1. may be safely acknowledged & expressed
  2. is manageable and they are capable of dealing with it

^are able to engage in instrumental problem solving

86
Q

securely attached people learn that proximity seeking

A

results in support, protection and relief of distress

  1. comfortable turning to others for support
  2. don’t see it as threat to their autonomy

^relatedness and autonomy aren’t seen as incompatible

87
Q

securely attached people overlook/downplay…

A

temporary instances of unresponsiveness or unavailability

88
Q

anxiously attached people display __________ for attachment figure availability

A

hyper-vigilance

biased perception in direction of noticing or imagining insufficient availability or responsiveness

ie. may misinterpret positive signals from others as sarcasm, make relationship-threatening attributions for positive behaviour

89
Q

anxiously attached: perceived signs of attachment figure’s unavailability amplify ______

A

distress

feel incapable of dealing with problems on their own

ramp up efforts to gain attachment figure’s care and protection

90
Q

primary strategy of anxiously attached individuals

A

ramping up efforts to gain attachment figure’s care and protection

hyper-activation of attachment system

91
Q

excessive reassurance seeking

A

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

DISCOUNT such assurances because they were FORCED - vicious cycle of doubt & demoralization

potentially culminating in depression

92
Q

avoidants have learned that proximity seeking may lead to…

A

punishment (inattention, rejection, hostility etc)

thus, proximity seeking is FUTILE at best, DANGEROUS at worst

93
Q

instead of proximity seeking, avoidants emphasize…

A

SELF-RELIANCE

tendency to see reliance and AUTONOMY as INCOMPATIBLE

94
Q

avoidants autonomy and reliance: daily diary study

A
  1. inhibited closeness-related goals
  2. withdrew emotionally from partners

on days when they had insufficient independence or control in their relationships

REALLY SENSITIVE TO THREATS TO AUTONOMY

95
Q

avoidant attachment study: lab heterosexual couples where women expected to participate in mystery stress task SETUP

A

“In the next few mins, you’re going to be exposed to a situation and set of experimental procedures that arouse considerable anxiety and distress in most people. due to the nature of these procedures, I can’t tell you any more at the moment. Of course, I’ll answer any questions or concerns you have after the experiment is over”

brought out to wait with partner (who hasn’t been told anything about the task)

96
Q

avoidant attachment study: lab heterosexual couples where women expected to participate in mystery stress task RESULTS

A

SECURE women:

a. comfortable seeking support

b. explicit about expressing desire for support

c. amount of support sought increases in proportion with distress

AVOIDANT women:

a. inhibited attention seeking as distress grows (defensive properties kick in)

b. the more strongly the attachment system is activated, the more defensive processes kick in

97
Q

anxious attachment & disclosure

A

focus on ONE’S OWN unfulfilled needs for closeness, fears & vulnerabilities

self-disclosure: often tends to be NEGATIVE in tone, INDISCRIMINATE & INAPPROPRIATE

“too much, too soon”

98
Q

disclosure of anxiously attached people is driven more by…

A

desire to:
1. MERGE with another person
2. garner SUPPORT
3. ASSUAGE FEAR of rejection

rather than focus on mutual enjoyment and reciprocity (like securely attached individuals)

^anxiously attached self disclosure undermines mutual enjoyment of disclosure and building of intimacy

99
Q

anxious attachment & responsiveness

A

OVER-INVOLVEMENT in partner’s problems

COMPULSIVE CAREGIVING

  1. may become OVERWHELMED by own distress
  2. don’t match level of care to level of need (CATASTROPHIZING)
  3. more preoccupied with SELF-CRITICAL THOUGHTS when interacting with someone who needs care
100
Q

avoidant attachment & disclosure

A

desire to MAINTAIN INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE and keep attachment system DEACTIVATED

work hard to INHIBIT emotional states incompatible with that goal

associated with LOWER LEVELS of SELF DISCLOSURE

a. contributes to LESS SATISFACTION with social support

b. LESS CLOSENESS after 36 questions task

101
Q

avoidant attachment & responsiveness

A

also SEEK LESS INFO about their partner

uncomfortable with partner distress

  1. higher levels of partner distress associated with greater withdrawal both in SUPPORT and PROVISION
  2. avoidant men also react with ANGER when partner whose in need of support expresses high levels of distress
102
Q

bowlby on stability and change

A

working models need to be both ENVIRONMENTALLY STABLE and ENVIRONMENTALLY LABILE

STABLE: provide sense of continuity despite fluctuations in environment

LABILE: help adapt to changes in environment and relationships with diff people

103
Q

self-perpetuating nature of working models general

A

working models are SCHEMAS: direct attention & influence how we INTERPRET, STORE, RECALL information

self-perpetuating: provide CONTINUITY between early and later attachment-related feelings & behaviour

104
Q

specific ways that working models are self-perpetuating

A
  1. perceptual confirmation

ie. being overly attentive to signs of inattention may perpetuate anxious individuals’ insecurity

  1. behavioural confirmation

ie. avoidants’ cold behaviour may drive away partners - confirming idea that others can’t be relied on

105
Q

behavioural confirmation: research example

A

examined effects of attachment anxiety on FIRST IMPRESSIONS

speed-dating, one-on-one with attractive perferred-sex confederate

individuals higher in anxious attachment LESS LIKELY TO BE CHOSEN for future contact & rated as LESS ATTRACTIVE/APPEALING

effect mediated by BEHAVIOURAL DISPLAYS of ANXIETY

ie. awkwardness, stinted body language

106
Q

within person variation in attachment security

A
  1. attachment security can vary across different attachment figures

ie. the way you relate to mom may not be the same as you relate to your romantic partner

  1. most people possess RELATIONAL SCHEMAS corresponding to a RANGE of ATTACHMENT ORIENTATIONS

ie. even individuals with global avoidant or anxious orientation have access to secure representations

^these reps can be made MORE ACCESSIBLE in certain contexts

107
Q

priming relational schemas

A

have participants:

  1. REFLECT ON positive attachment memories
  2. view IMAGES/WORDS related to attachment security & figure availability

leads individuals to process info in ways consistent with activated schemas

108
Q

research examples of priming relational schemas - security priming led people to…

A
  1. RECALL more positive attachment related WORDS in a memory task
  2. ENDORSE more positive relationship EXPECTATIONS
  3. EXPERIENCE less jealousy in response to threatening hypothetical scenario
109
Q

social cognitive perspective on attachment styles

A

global attachment style reflects AVAILABILITY and ACCESSIBILITY of different kinds of relational schemas

availability: do you have a schema for a certain type of relationship?

accessibility: how easily to the representations come to mind?

110
Q

cognitive perspective: schema availability

A

Ps with secure attachment styles most likely group to report secure relationships

Ps with avoidant styles most likely group to report avoidant relationships

111
Q

cognitive perspective: schema accessibility

A

your attachment style predicted which patterns came to mind most easily

  • secure attachment = higher accessibility of positive schemas
  • insecurely attached people may also have positive schemas, but may be WEIGHING THEM DIFFERENTLY
111
Q

change over time

A

at least 40% of people experience CHANGES in GLOBAL ATTACHMENT orientation over their lifetime

112
Q

change of attachment orientation over time particularly linked to…

A

major stressors & important life transitions

  1. health crises
  2. bereavement
  3. beginning/ending of important romantic relationships
  4. marriage & parenthood
113
Q

major stressors & transitions may provide important diagnostic situations about…

A

others’ availability & responsiveness

for better or for worse

114
Q

top down processing

A

how SCHEMAS shape information processing

ie. availability and accessibility of certain schemas

115
Q

bottom up processing - role in attachment

A

partner behaviour matters

trust = sense that partner can be relief on (SAFE HAVEN)

perceived goal validation = sense that partner supports one’s goal pursuits (SECURE BASE)

116
Q

safe haven & secure base - support over time

A

SHORT TERM:

  1. TRUST may be particularly helpful for reducing attachment ANXIETY
  2. GOAL VALIDATION may be particularly helpful for reducing attachment AVOIDANCE

but OVER TIME…

  1. GOAL VALIDATION is particularly important for ANXIOUS individuals

^ building up sense of SELF-EFFICACY - repairing model of self

  1. TRUST is particularly important for AVOIDANT individuals

^ teaching the individual that close others can be RELIED ON - repairing model of other

117
Q

safe haven & secure base - short term

A

TRUST (safe haven) important for ANXIOUSLY attached people

GOAL VALIDATION (secure base) important for AVOIDANT people

118
Q

safe haven & secure base - long term

A

GOAL VALIDATION particularly important for ANXIOUSLY attached people

^ it repairs their model of self, builds self-efficacy

TRUST particularly important for AVOIDANT individuals

^ it repairs their model of others, shows they can be relief on

119
Q

responsive social support fosters attachment security, but do avoidants benefit from receiving social support from their partners?

A

INCONSISTENT FINDINGS:

  1. may REACT DEFENSIVELY when receiving support

^ threat to autonomy and independence

  1. other research shows they BENEFIT from partner support in CERTAIN SITUATIONS

^ another important contextual factor may be TYPE of support provided

120
Q

important contextual factors for whether avoidants benefit from social support from partners

A

the TYPE and LEVEL of support

avoidants may particularly benefit from PRACTICAL SUPPORT

HIGH LEVELS of support may break through avoidant defenses by starkly contradicting negative experiences

121
Q

types of support

A
  1. EMOTIONAL support

^ expression of comfort & caring

  1. PRACTICAL/INSTRUMENTAL support

^ provision of tangible resources & aid, problem solving

122
Q

avoidants may particularly benefit from this

A

practical support

unlike emotional support, doesn’t require the kind of DISCUSSION OF EMOTIONS, affection, intimacy etc

that avoidants are uncomfortable with

it’s less vulnerable

123
Q

level of support: avoidant individuals

A

extent to which avoidants derive benefit from social support may also depend on the LEVEL of support being provided

SCHEMAS = particularly INFLUENTIAL when AMBIGUITY is HIGH

  • ie. when support levels are low
124
Q

when are schemas particularly influentatial?

A

when ambiguity is high

ie. when support levels are LOW

so when support is low, avoidants rely on their negative relationship schemas

inadequate levels of perceived support CONFIRMS EXPECTATIONS that partner can’t be depended on

125
Q

avoidants: inadequate levels of perceived support confirms expectations that partner can’t be depended on…

A

leads to threat responses

automatic defenses are engaged

126
Q

level of support: low-moderate range versus beyond average levels

A

low-moderate range:

a. increasing levels of PRACTICAL SUPPORT associated with:
- MORE DISTRESS
- LESS SELF-EFFICACY
- GREATER INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE
by avoidant individuals

beyond average levels:

a. increasing levels of support have the OPPOSITE EFFECTS

127
Q

levels of support for avoidants takeaway

A
  1. high levels of support may break through avoidant defenses by STARKLY CONTRADICTING NEGATIVE EXPECTATIONS
  2. suggests that avoidants’ emphasis on independence & self-reliance is a DEFENSIVE MECHANISM

^ they want care and support, but also want to protect themselves from hurt

128
Q

consistency and turbulence: negative relationship events can…

A

undermine attachment security

ie. chronic relationship difficulties
ie. breakups

129
Q

consistency and turbulence: recall that consistency matters…

A

consistency matters for fostering attachment security

130
Q

consistency and turbulence: secure individuals expect…

A

expect stability & consistency over time

lack of stability can cause damage

131
Q

consistency and turbulence: when secure individuals experience greater fluctuations in relationship-specific security…

A

they evince most pronounced declines in relationship satisfaction

and

most pronounced increases in relationship distress

securely attached people are impacted negatively to the greatest extent when they experience inconsistency (they aren’t used to it)

Psyc 474 (23 decks)

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