PSY311 4. Attachment Flashcards
What is Emotional Attachment?
John Bowlby (1969) – the strong affectional ties
that we feel for key people in our lives
– Characterized by mutual affection and a desire for
proximity
• Reciprocal relationships
– Formed by synchrony between mother and baby
• “Sensitive period” hypothesis
– Not true, attachment builds gradually over the first
years of life
What is Emotional Attachment?
spend a lot of time together and learn more about each other
strong emotional bonds are built
for a rhythm where the mother learns about the babies’ needs and when they need it
sensitive period: need skin to skin contact to form an attachment immediately after birth
adoptive children can still form secure attachment
not form in the first few minutes or days - continuous process that goes on for months to a year forming a synchronicity
What is Emotional Attachment?
-
What is Emotional Attachment?
-
Why Does Attachment Happen?
One theory - “I love you because you feed me”
– Freud and Erikson (psychoanalysis)
• oral stimulation, trust vs. mistrust
– Sears (behaviorism)
• mother as secondary reinforcer
• Harlow and Zimmerman (1959)
– Baby monkeys weaned by two surrogate mothers – one
wire and the other cloth
• Even monkeys who were fed by wire mother preferred cloth
mother
• Therefore comfort is more important for attachment than
feeding
Why Does Attachment Happen?
-Freud: infants get satisfaction from the mouth
stronger bond to mother if mother was generous and relaxed in breastfeeding
Erikson: trust vs. mistrust stage - mother’s responsiveness was more important
Sears: feeding was important - 1) baby gives off positive responses when breastfeeding (makes mother more attached) + 2) mother provides baby comfort (food, warmth, tender touching, soothing voice) and becomes associated with comforting things
Harlow: interested in love and attachment
disproves that attachment occurs because of feeding
Why Does Attachment Happen?
-
Why Does Attachment Happen?
-
Why Does Attachment Happen?
-
Harlow’s Monkeys
-Wire mother vs comfort mother for monkeys
feeling of security and comfort from mother
wire monkey chose comfort mother
Harlow’s Monkeys
-
Harlow’s Monkeys
-
Why Does Attachment Happen?
• Another theory (ethology) - “I was born to love you,
you were made to love me”
– Purpose of attachment is to promote survival
• Imprinting in geese, for example
• Babies look and act adorable
– Bowlby – “attachment behaviour system”
Why Does Attachment Happen?
-Ethology: long range purpose is for baby to survive and pass off genes
research started with animal studies - Lorenz
imprinting is an adaptive behaviour
Kewpie bond effect: chubby cheeks, small size, smiling, cooing makes them adorable
true for any species
attachment behaviour system: all working together to form attachment (enjoyment of taking care of child and belief they are doing a good job)
Why Does Attachment Happen?
-
Why Does Attachment Happen?
-
Does this Mean that Attachment in
Humans is Automatic?
• John Bowlby said that:
Human beings are biologically prepared to form
close attachments
but
Secure emotional bonds will not develop unless
mother and baby learn over time how to respond
appropriately to each other
Does this Mean that Attachment in
Humans is Automatic?
-secure attachments occur gradually as they learn how to react appropriately to each other
learn how to regulate their behaviour around each other
it can go wrong (depressed mothers)
Does this Mean that Attachment in
Humans is Automatic?
-
Does this Mean that Attachment in
Humans is Automatic?
-
The Beginning of Attachment ResearchThe Beginning of Attachment Research
• Robertson and Bowlby (1952) at the Tavistock clinic in
London
– Identified three phases of separation from mothers
1) Protest phase
2) Phase of despair
3) Detachment phase
The Beginning of Attachment Research
at the time it was normal to leave children for long periods
Case Study John 17 months - residential nursery for 9 days
distressed for several days - became despair
John became emotionally detached
2) mourning
3) defence mechanism - repression-
The Beginning of Attachment Research
-
The Beginning of Attachment Research
-
Development of Attachments in Infancy
Schaffer & Emerson, 1964
1) Asocial – Birth to 6 weeks old – Respond in an equal way to interesting social and nonsocial stimuli 2) Indiscriminate attachments – 6 weeks to 6/7 months old – Prefer social to nonsocial stimuli – Enjoy attention from anyone, protest when denied attention 3) Specific attachment – 7 to 9 months old – First genuine attachment is established – Protest when separated from mother – Somewhat wary of strangers 4) Multiple attachments – 9 to 18 months old – From attachments to other individuals (e.g., fathers, siblings, grandparents, nanny)
Development of Attachments in Infancy
Schaffer & Emerson, 1964
-followed scottish infants and asked parents about babies in different situations
defined attachement as whether baby protested upon seperation
1) asocial: not much attachment
3) most babies would start to protest
stranger anxiety starts
Development of Attachments in Infancy
Schaffer & Emerson, 1964
-
Development of Attachments in Infancy
Schaffer & Emerson, 1964
-
Development of Attachments in Infancy
Schaffer & Emerson, 1964
-
Multiple Attachments
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) -
hierarchy of attachment objects Mother
Father
Sister
Grandma
Nanny
Schaffer (1977) – “Being attached to several people
does not necessarily imply a shallower feeling toward
each one, for an infant’s capacity for attachment is not
like a cake that has to be [divided]. Love, even in
babies, has no limits.
Multiple Attachments
-thought there was a hierarchy
each attachment has their own role
infants capacity for attachment is not divided
can form strong attachments for multiple people
different roles and different kinds of attachment
e.g. mothers for comfort and fathers for playing
Multiple Attachments
-
Multiple Attachments
-
Mary Ainsworth (1978, 1979)
Devised the most widely used technique to
measure attachment quality
– The Strange Situation procedure
• Mother as secure base
– Infants need to rely on the mother to feel
comfortable about exploring the world
• Mother as a safe haven
– Infants need to know that they can return to the
mother for comfort when afraid
Mary Ainsworth (1978, 1979)
-analyzed Robertson’s data at Tavastok
e.g. cloth monkey mother - secure base
feel comfortable exploring, get scared then come back to the mother
once comfortable will use mother as a secure base once again
Mary Ainsworth (1978, 1979)
-
Mary Ainsworth (1978, 1979)
-
Mary Ainsworth (1978, 1979)
-
Strange Situation Procedure
1) Experimenter takes mother and baby to playroom, then leaves
2) Mother allows baby to explore and play
3) Stranger enters room and is silent, then talks to mother
4) Mother leaves and stranger interacts with baby
5) Mother returns and greets baby, stranger leaves, then mother leaves
6) Baby is alone
7) Stranger enters and interacts with baby
8) Mother enters and greets baby
Strange Situation Procedure
-secure attachment: when baby is comforted by mother’s return and shows interest in environment
insecure attachment: avoidant, not engaging her, her return is not the solution
resistant: still upset on her return - angry
both want her back but can’t use contact
inconsistent responsiveness
Strange Situation Procedure
-
Strange Situation Procedure
-
Strange Situation Procedure
-
Strange Situation Procedure
-
Strange Situation Procedure
-
Strange Situation Procedure
-
Strange Situation Attachment Styles
Attachment style Use of mother as secure base Separation anxiety Reunion behaviors Stranger anxiety Comforted by stranger? Group A) Secure (60-65%) Yes Usually some distress upon separation Greets mother warmly, if distressed will seek comfort Outgoing with strangers Somewhat, but clearly wants mother Group B) Insecure – Resistant (10%) No Extremely distressed upon separation Ambivalent; will remain near mother but passive or resists her attempts at comfort, can be angry Wary of strangers, sometimes appears angry ?? Likely no Group C) Insecure – Avoidant (20%) Maybe Little distress upon separation Will turn away and ignore mother, appearing angry Can be sociable with strangers or may ignore them Yes, reunion with stranger typically alleviates distress
Strange Situation Attachment Styles
-resistant: don’t use mother as a secure base
resist attempts of comfort
avoidant - sometimes use mom as secure base
sociable to strangers
Strange Situation Attachment Styles
-
Strange Situation Attachment Styles
-
Strange Situation Attachment Styles
-
Strange Situation Attachment Styles
-
Mary Main and Judith Solomon (1990)
Group D) Insecure - disorganized attachment – 5-15% of infants – Combination of resistant and avoidant patterns – “fear without solution” – Upon reunion often look fearful, exhibit contradictory behaviors, rapid shifts – 80% of maltreated infants
Mary Main and Judith Solomon (1990)
-when abused children put in stranger situation
they didn’t fit specific characteristics of types of attachment
5-15% didn’t into the categories
unclassifiable infants tended to show range of inexplicable, odd, conflictual behaviours when parents were around - disorganized attachment
e.g. scream by door, move away upon reunion, take comfort in the wall
80% of abused develop a disorganized attachment
dilemma of being harmed by parents but at same time have no one else to turn to
both the cause and alleviation of distress
they don’t have good coping behaviours
Mary Main and Judith Solomon (1990)
-
Mary Main and Judith Solomon (1990)
-
Mary Main and Judith Solomon (1990)
-
What Influences Attachment Security?
1) Mother is sensitive, responsive, and insightful § Responds promptly and appropriately to infant § Expresses positive affect and affection § Reciprocal interactions § Mutuality, attends to the same thing as the infant § Attends closely to the infant’s activities § Stimulates the infant = secure attachment Mother is impatient and rejecting Ø Infant learns to ignore mother = avoidant attachment Mother is intrusive and overstimulating Ø Infant learns to ignore mother = avoidant attachment Mother is inconsistent Ø Infant tries harder to obtain emotional support from mother, becomes angry when efforts fail = resistant attachment
What Influences Attachment Security?
times they are unresponsive, infants works harder to obtain support and gets angry when they don’t get it
avoidant: learned to get by without mother
What Influences Attachment Security?
-
What Influences Attachment Security?
-
What Influences Attachment Security?
-
What Influences Attachment Security?
-
What Influences Attachment Security?
-
What Influences Attachment Security?
-
What Influences Attachment Security?
2) Infant temperament • Jerome Kagan (1984, 89) – Strange Situation actually measures individual differences in temperament, not attachment style – His hypothesis is too extreme
What Influences Attachment Security?
Temperamental profile Percentage of infants Easy 60% Difficult 15% Slow to warm up 23%
What Influences Attachment Security?
Attachment style Percentage of infants Secure 65% Resistant 10% Avoidant 20%
What Influences Attachment Security?
don’t do well in strange situation because they are overwhelmed
slow to warm up may get classified as avoidant
Kagan: maybe people with similar temperaments react similarly to the same situation
while temperament may influence way they interact, but not the same thing as the attachment to mothers
difficult and slow to warm up infants can form secure attachment to mothers
What Influences Attachment Security?
-
What Influences Attachment Security?
-
What Influences Attachment Security?
-
What Influences Attachment Security?
3) Integrative theory
• Grazyna Kochanska (1998)
• Maternal sensitivity à attachment style
– but not the specific type of insecurity
• Fearful children à resistant attachments
• Fearless children à avoidant attachments
• Secure attachment happens when there is a good
fit between the infant’s temperament and the
mother’s level of sensitivity
• Sensitivity = tailoring caregiving to infant’s
temperament
What Influences Attachment Security?
-maternal sensitivity didn’t predict resistant or avoidant
by itself, fearful temperament did not predict attachment style, but fearful infants with insecure attachment likely had resistant
fearless temperament tended to have avoidant attachment
able to tailor caregiving to infant’s temperament
What Influences Attachment Security?
-
What Influences Attachment Security?
-
What Influences Attachment Security?
-
Long Term Correlates
of Attachment Security
• Securely attached infants display better developmental outcomes
– Problem solving skills
– Symbolic play
– More positive and fewer negative emotions
– Popularity
– Social skills
• Insecurely attached infants display worse developmental outcomes
– Peer rejection
– Socially withdrawn
– Less interested in learning
– More deviant behaviors
Long Term Correlates
of Attachment Security
-children influenced by infant attachment for the rest of their lives
Long Term Correlates
of Attachment Security
-
Long Term Correlates
of Attachment Security
-
Long Term Correlates
of Attachment Security
-
Internal Working Model
• Cognitive representations of you + others • Used to interpret events and form expectations about relationships Positive working model “I’m lovable” People can not be trusted versus Negative working model “I’m unworthy of love” People are generally dependable
Internal Working Model
how you think about you and oter ppl
based it on ability to get attention or comfort when they need it
couldn’t get attention or comfort or inconsistent
trust vs mistrust - stage that needed to be resolved
in ppl with negative working model, this stage is not resolved
Internal Working Model
-
Internal Working Model
-
Internal Working Model
-
Internal Working Model
• People who develop positive working models of themselves and of others: – have had secure primary attachments – have the self-confidence to approach and master new challenges – establish secure, mutualtrust relationships with friends and romantic partners later in life
Internal Working Model
Model of Self Positive Negative Model of Others Positive Secure (secure primary attachments) Preoccupied (resistant primary attachments) Negative Dismissing (avoidant primary attachments) Fearful (disorganized primary attachments)
Internal Working Model
dismissing: avoidant
used to categorize attachment model in adulthood
ppl with positive working models of selves and others - tend to have secure attachment, trust and form relationships, ability to explore and problem solve
without positive working model, it’s easier to feel sense of hopelessness when things become difficult
Internal Working Model-
-
Internal Working Model
-
Internal Working Model
-
Internal Working Model
-
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
Main & Goldwyn, 1994
Scoring based on:
– Descriptions of childhood experiences
– Language and discourse style
– Ability to give an integrated, believable account of experiences and their
meaning
Adult attachment classifications:
A. Secure - Autonomous - value attachment relationships, view attachmentrelated
experiences as influential in development, describe history coherently
and with appropriate feelings (positive or negative), do not idealize parents or
feel angry about past
B. Insecure - Dismissing - deny or devalue the impact of early attachment relationships, have difficulty with recall of specific events, often idealize
experiences and parents without evidence, describe an early history of
rejection
C. Insecure - Preoccupied – incoherence and confusion about past experiences,
current relationships with parents are marked by active anger or with passivity,
still very much preoccupied with the past
D. Unresolved – attachment-related traumas of loss and/or abuse have not been reconciled
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
Main & Goldwyn, 1994
=reflects internal working model of attachment
e.g. choose 5 words that reflect relationships
secure: neutral - some positive + negative
preoccupied: chronology mixed up
don’t have good current relationships with parents
measure mother’s attachment so find attachment transmission
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
Main & Goldwyn, 1994
-
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
Main & Goldwyn, 1994
-
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
Main & Goldwyn, 1994
-
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
Main & Goldwyn, 1994
-
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
Main & Goldwyn, 1994
-
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
Main & Goldwyn, 1994
-
Attachment Across Generations
Time of assessment During pregnancy Child age 11 months Child age 12 months Who was assessed Mother Mother Child Assessment used Adult Attachment Interview Adult Attachment Interview Strange Situation Grandmother Adult Attachment Interview
Attachment Across Generations
Results:
- Grandmother + Mother (during pregnancy) = 75% match
- Mother (during pregnancy) + Child = 81% match
- Mother (child age 11 months) + Child = 82% match
- Grandmother + Mother + Child = 80% match
(Benoit & Parker, 1994)
Attachment Across Generations
during pregnancy - as a control
attachment classification could change between pregnancy and child age 11 months
match between predelivery and grandmother’s attachment
not much of a change in attachment pre and post delivery
difficult to conceptualize how it may be transmitted
state of mind in regards to attachment communicated somehow to children
mothers are blamed for bad attachment
learned internal working model in part from her mother
Attachment Across Generations
-
Attachment Across Generations
-
Attachment Across Generations
-
Attachment in Romantic Relationships
Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver (1987, 1990)
– Secure intimate relationships (50%) – enjoy
closeness, find intimacy easy to establish
• Work and love in balance
– Avoidant intimate relationships (33%) –
uncomfortable with closeness and find it difficult to
trust partners
• Work more important than love
– Resistant intimate relationships (17%) – constant
worry about being abandoned
• Love more important than work
Attachment in Romantic Relationships
items out of typical ways they would behave on likert scale e.g. how much do you enjoy closeness? percentages similar to reported in stranger situation asked them about work and jobs correlation between work and love secure: balance, but prioritize love avoidant: avoid close relationships resistant: insecure jobs romantic relationships are prioritized
Attachment in Romantic Relationships
-
Attachment in Romantic Relationships
-
Attachment in Romantic Relationships
-
Attachment in Romantic Relationships
-
Attachment in Romantic Relationships
-
Infant Attachment Style ≠
Destiny!
• Working model means our representations can be
changed by later experiences
– Secure relationship with someone else (father,
grandparent) can protect against consequences of
insecure attachment to mother
– If mothers can improve sensitivity, attachments improve
– Secure attachments can also become insecure (see
Waters et al., 2000 and Weinfield et al., 2000 readings)
Bottom line à secure attachment is an important
advantage, but it isn’t everything, and insecure
attachment doesn’t mean you are doomed
Infant Attachment Style ≠
Destiny!
-representations can be changed based on experience
having a secure relationship with someone else can protect from insecure attachment with mother
interventions to improve mothers’ parenting
outcome studies show that improving sensitivity improves attachemnt
secure attachments can become insecure
64% had same attachment style when they were young
no stressful life events, only 50% could change attachment
having an insecure attachment doesn’t necessarily mean you are doomed
Infant Attachment Style ≠
Destiny!
-
Infant Attachment Style ≠
Destiny!
-
Infant Attachment Style ≠
Destiny!
-
Infant Attachment Style ≠
Destiny!
-
The Effects of Social Deprivation in Infancy
Length of time in orphanage is very important • Those adopted after age 3 (as compared with before age 1) – Lower IQ – Socially immature – Dependant on adults – Poor language skills – Behavior problems (aggression and hyperactivity) – Difficulty with peer relationships
The Effects of Social Deprivation in Infancy
confined children in cribs without social contact
not much opportunity to form attachments or bonds
number of institutionalized children with above 60% disorganized attachment
never institutionalized had similar breakdown as seen in NA samples
those adopted after 3 - lack of attachment causes developmental delays in children due to lack of stimulation
The Effects of Social Deprivation in Infancy
-
The Effects of Social Deprivation in Infancy
-
The Effects of Social Deprivation in Infancy
-
Reactive Attachment Disorder
of Infancy and Childhood (RAD)
A. Markedly disturbed and developmentally inappropriate attachment behaviors, beginning before
age 5, with both:
1. Rarely or minimally seeks comfort when distressed
2. Rarely or minimally responds to comfort offered
B. Persistent social and emotional disturbance with at least 2 of:
1. Relative lack of social and emotional responsiveness
2. Limited positive affect
3. Episodes of unexplained irritability, sadness, or fearfulness evident during nonthreatening
interactions with caregivers
C. Not accounted for by an autism spectrum disorder
D. Pathogenic care as evidenced by ≥ 1 of:
– Persistent disregard of child’s basic emotional needs for comfort, stimulation, and affection
– Persistent disregard of child’s basic physical needs
– Repeated changes of primary caregiver that prevent formation of attachments
– Rearing in unusual settings such as institutions that limit opportunities to form
attachments
E. The care in Criterion D is responsible for the behavior in Criteria A/B (or presumed to be)
F. Developmental age ≥ 9 months
Reactive Attachment Disorder
of Infancy and Childhood (RAD)
lack of emotional reciprocity, more aggressive when older, lack of conscience, unpredictable - 8/12 children
8/26 children formed specific attachment
some went with strangers
1 clinical presentation in DSM-V
needs to have had greater than 1 bad parenting example
assumption is that attachment disorder is caused by pathogenic care
F. if child is developmentally disabled, it’s hard to diagnosed with this disorder
attachment forms normally at around 9 months
extremely rare - rarely diagnosed
more pathological lack of attachment that translates to emotional and developmental disturbance than a disorganized attachment
Reactive Attachment Disorder
of Infancy and Childhood (RAD)
-
Reactive Attachment Disorder
of Infancy and Childhood (RAD)
-
Reactive Attachment Disorder
of Infancy and Childhood (RAD)
-
Reactive Attachment Disorder
of Infancy and Childhood (RAD)
-
Reactive Attachment Disorder
of Infancy and Childhood (RAD)
-
The Effects of Social Deprivation in Infancy
-
The Effects of Social Deprivation in Infancy
-
The Effects of Social Deprivation in Infancy
-
The Effects of Social Deprivation in Infancy
-
The Effects of Social Deprivation in Infancy
-
