(Unit 6) - Attachment Theory Flashcards
No chapter reading
ATTACHMENT THEORY
- Influential theoretical framework for understanding the emotional bonds we
form with our closest others (child-parent, romantic partners in adulthood)
– Experiences we have with our closest others, beginning in infancy, shape
our social & emotional development, thereby impacting future relationships - Two components to the theory:
– Normative development & functioning of the attachment system
– Individual differences in how the attachment system operates
BEHAVIOURIST PERSPECTIVE ON LOVE
- School of behaviourism dominates thinking and research in psychology for first half of 20th century
- Argues that all human and animal behaviour can be explained in terms of conditioning
(associations made between two events)
– Thoughts and feelings are irrelevant
– Gordon Allport: psychology circa 1950 can
be characterized as “a flight from
tenderness” - Infants cling to their mothers because they have come to associate the mother with food and other material rewards
- But how to explain the lifelong, unrelenting persistence of love?
REVOLUTIONIZING CHILD CARE
* With emerging understanding of germs, utmost priority placed on sanitation
and cleanliness
– Cuddling babies is unhygienic & dangerous
* Behaviourist perspective: childcare viewed in terms of “training”, “stimuli”,
“conditioned responses”
– Picking up a crying baby is conditioning them to be whiny
* Despite greatly improved sanitary conditions in orphanages & hospitals,
mortality & morbidity rates for young children stubbornly high,
developmental & mental health issues
HARRY HARLOW (1958) monkey experiment
HARRY HARLOW (1958)
* Love and affection can, and should be, studied
scientifically
* Point of departure for study of love: the
affectionate bond of a child for its mother
- Infant macaque monkeys
raised alone in lab showed
severe developmental issues - Noted strong attachment the
laboratory
-raised infants
developed to the soft cloth
pads used to cover the floor of
their cages
WHICH SURROGATE MOTHER IS
PREFERRED?
* Cloth mother and wire mother placed in different cubicles attached to infant’s
cage
* For half the monkeys: cloth mother “lactates”, the wire mother does not
* Other half: wire mother “lactates”, the cloth mother does not
* Which variable would win out—nursing or contact comfort?
SURROGATE MOTHER
AS SOURCE OF
SECURITY
* Faced with novel, fear-producing situations,
infants prefer to cling to the cloth, but the wire,
surrogate mother
* Use her as a “secure base” for exploration
* High levels of distress in unfamiliar situations
when cloth mother absent
– Having the wire mother present does not help
JOHN BOWLBY’S
ATTACHMENT THEORY
(1969)
- 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 cannot survive without caregiver to
protect them from harm—some mechanism
must be in place to keep infants close to
caregivers
ATTACHMENT BEHAVIOURAL SYSTEM
* Conceptualized
attachment behavioural
system as akin to a control
system
* Basic example—
thermostat for regulating
room temperature
* Instead of regulating
temperature, regulates
safety
With mother = happy, when mother leave=cries (proximity seeking behaviours), mother comes back = regulated (felt security)
- 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
ATTACHMENT FIGURE HALLMARKS
* Proximity seeking: the person you go to, particularly when in need or distress
* Safe haven: provides protection, comfort, & support
* Secure base: allows one to pursue nonattachment goals in safe environment
* Separation distress: actual or expected separation from attachment figures
evokes strong feelings of distress
– Defining feature of attachment relationship
– We are drawn to our attachment figures not only by the rewards of their
company, but by the pain of separation from them
RESPONSE TO SEPARATION
* Protest: acute distress, desperate attempts to re-establish contact (crying,
clinging, calling, searching), generally rejection of contact with others
* Despair: preoccupation with caregiver still evident, depressed mood, appear
hopeless and withdrawn
* Detachment: may begin to show interest in other things and people, often
appears listless & apathetic if reunited with caregiver, may exhibit anger
MARY AINSWORTH’s strange situation
- Much of Bowlby’s writings focused on theory
building around normative attachment processes - Colleague Mary Ainsworth made crucial
psychometric and empirical contributions (put
theory to the test)
– Concerned not only with whether children were
attached, but also with how they were attached,
and the maternal factors that predicted this
STRANGE SITUATION
21
* Ainsworth devised laboratory paradigm
for studying attachment dynamics as
described by Bowlby
– Infants brought into unfamiliar
(“strange”) laboratory environment
– Experiment divided into series of
“episodes”: Separations and reunions
with the mother
SECURE PATTERN
* Distressed by mother’s departure (at young age)
* Seeks contact with the mother upon her return; readily soothed and reassured
by her presence
* Uses mother as a secure base to explore
RESISTANT/AMBIVALENT (anxious) PATTERN
* The “clingy” baby on the video
* Highly distressed by mother’s departure
* Continues to cry and exhibit distress even when contact is restored
* Contradictory behaviour toward the mother (trying to get close, but
sometimes also anger & resistance)
* No interest in exploration, not able to use mother as a secure base
AVOIDANT PATTERN
* The “sullen” baby on the video
* Appears indifferent to the mother upon her return
* May play with toys but does not actively involve the mother as securely
attached babies do
* Further research identified signs of physiological stress (e.g., elevated heart
rate; Sroufe & Waters, 1977)
PREVALENCE
* Madigan et al. (2023): meta-analysis of the first 20,000 Strange Situation
procedures:
– 51.6% secure
– 14.7% avoidant
– 10.2% resistant/ambivalent (anxious)
– 23.%% disorganized (lack of coherent attachment strategy)
ANTECEDENTS OF SECURE PATTERN
* Secure pattern of attachment thought to
derive from history of positive interactions
with a responsive caregiver
– Bids for proximity and reassurance are
sensitively and consistently attended to
– Learns that the primary attachment
strategy—seeking proximity to caregiver
when in distress—is safe and effective
– Can bravely explore the world because
mom will be there if you get into trouble
ANTECEDENTS OF INSECURE
PATTERNS
* Insecure attachment thought to stem from deficits in caregiving
* Anxious/ambivalent: caregiver is inconsistent
– Leads to hyperactivation of the attachment system (if I ramp up my bids for
proximity, maybe caregiver will respond)
* Avoidant: caregiver is rejecting, discourages closeness
– Leads to deactivation of the attachment system (if I don’t come off as too
needy, maybe the caregiver won’t reject me)
INTERNAL WORKING MODELS
* Through attachment interactions, develop schemas or internal working
models of themselves, their attachment figures, & attachment relationships
– ”Working” =
* Allows to simulate/predict likely outcomes of attachment behaviours
* Provisional/subject to updating
* Include:
– Specific autobiographical memories; generalized beliefs about oneself,
attachment figures, & close relationships; procedural knowledge (how to
regulate emotions & behave in close relationships)
* Representations of attachment figures’ responses (models of other)
– Can others be relied on?
* Representations of one’s own efficacy & value (models of self)
– Am I loveable?
* Organize attachment knowledge and guide subsequent interactions with
attachment figures as well as other people
* Bias the way we interpret information & encode it into memory
– ”tolerably accurate reflections of what actually happened” (Bowlby)
ATTACHMENT BEYOND CHILDHOOD
- 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”
SIMILAR ATTACHMENT DYNAMICS
* Proximity-seeking under threat
– E.g., couples separating in airport more likely to
maintain physical contact (mutual gaze, touching,
talking intently) (Fraley & Shaver, 1998)
– Diary study: seek more support from romantic partner
when experiencing more threat (Collins & Feeney, 2005)
* Separation distress
– Experience intense anger, anxiety, & sadness in response
to actual or perceived threats to close relationships
– Bereavement is a universally painful experience
* Safe haven
– Mere presence of a close relationship partner can
alleviate distress in the lab (e.g., Allen et al., 1991)
and real-life (e.g., Campa et al., 2009)
* Secure base
– When Ps perceive romantic partners as more
supportive, report greater sense of
independence, self-efficacy, more autonomous
goal exploration, more likely to achieve goals
(Feeney, 2007)
DIFFERENCES
* Individuals other than parents often take role of attachment figures (romantic
partners, close friends)
* Psychological (not just physical) proximity
* Threshold for attachment system activation is higher
* Become more capable of self-soothing (internalized positive selfrepresentations)
* Mutuality (care-seeking and caregiving)
* Sexuality
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
* Can identify similar patterns
attachment in adults (Hazan & Shaver,
1987)
* Initially, 3 category typological
measure:
– Similar breakdown: 56% secure, 19%
anxious, 25% avoidant
– Later distinguished between
dismissing and fearful avoidant types
(Bartholomew, 1990)
Adult patterns
SECURE (low anxiety, low avoidance)
It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable
depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being
alone or having others not accept me.
PREOCCUPIED (anxious) (high anxiety, low avoidance)
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 am uncomfortable being
without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me
as much as I value them.
FEARFUL (avoidant) (high anxiety, high avoidance)
I am 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
DISMISSING (avoidant) (low anxiety, high avoidance)
I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important for
me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others
or have others depend on me.
BEHAVIOURAL ASSESSMENT
43
* Adult Attachment Interview (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1996)
– Discuss relationship with parents, choose adjectives that describe them,
justify choice, speculate about parents’ behaviour
* Interest not just in content of answers, but how individual discusses these
experiences—trying to infer state of mind relative to attachment
– Are answers (in)coherent? (In)consistent? Are there signs of emotional
disorganization?
ADULT ATTACHMENT INTERVIEW
44
* Secure
– Balanced, realistic view of early relationships
– See attachment experiences as valuable & influential
– Open, direct, & co-operative in their discourse
* Dismissing
– Discomfort discussing childhood experiences
– Unsubstantiated attempts to idealize or put positive spin on negative
experiences
– Deny influence of early attachment relationships
* Preoccupied
– Seem anxious and/or angry
– Appear to still be enmeshed with these early relationship experiences
– Long-winded, signs of confusion & inconsistency
DIMENSIONS, NOT TYPES
- Statistical analysis suggests that
attachment is best characterized in terms
of dimensions rather than types (Haydon
et al., 2011) - Typological measures cannot account for
variation among people within a
category—but such variation is important - Later measures like the Experiences in
Close Relationships scale (Brennan et al.,
1998) measure attachment on two
continuous dimensions
– Anxiety: items tap into fear of rejection &
abandonment, exaggerated desire for
closeness
– Avoidance: items tap into discomfort
with closeness, emotional suppression
ANXIETY SUBSCALE EXAMPLES
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
AVOIDANCE SUBSCALE EXAMPLES
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 others
I don’t feel comfortable opening up to others
CONTROL-SYSTEM MODEL OF
ATTACHMENT
To better understand differences in the way the attachment system operates
across individuals, helpful to revisit model of normative attachment system
function (adapted from Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003)
See image slide 52
THREAT DETECTION & APPRAISALS
THREAT APPRAISALS
* First phase: threat monitoring & appraisal
– Can involve both external and internal events
– Both physical & psychological threats
– Attachment-related or attachment-unrelated
* Individual differences in threat detection and appraisal
ANXIOUS ATTACHMENT
* Hyperactivating strategies
– Heightened vigilance for possible threats
– Exaggerated appraisals of threats
(catastrophizing)
– Rumination, difficulty disengaging from
emotional hurt and negativity
– High accessibility of negative emotional
memories
COLLINS ET AL., 2006
* Ps presented with vignettes depicting potentially negative partner behaviour
– E.g., “Your partner wanted to spend the evening by themselves”
* Individuals higher in attachment anxiety more likely to make relationshipthreatening attributions
– E.g., “my partner is losing interest in me”
VS
– “My partner is tired and just needs some time to relax at home”
* Also reported greater distress
SIMPSON, RHOLES, & PHILLIPS, 1996
* Dating couples participated in conflict
discussion in the lab
* Anxiously attached individuals reported more
stress and anxiety, saw their partners and the
relationships less positively after the
interaction
– Not accounted for by observers’ ratings of
the interaction—i.e., negative perceptions of
partner not because the interaction was
actually more negative, but rather was
interpreted more negatively
SADIKAJ ET AL., 2011
* Affective reactions to
perceptions of partner’s
behaviour in everyday life
(event-contingent recording)
* Individuals high in attachment
anxiety had stronger negative
affective reactions when they
perceived the partner
behaving less warmly than
usual
AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT
* Goal is to keep the attachment system deactivated (deactivation strategy)
* Attempt to minimize experiences that might lead to attachment system
activation (Fraley et al., 2000)
– Postemptive strategies: avoid retrieving, dwelling on, or elaborating on
extant memories, insecurities, fears, etc. (e.g., what you see on the AAI)
– Preemptive strategies: deflect attention away from distress provoking
material, fail to encode it into memory
* E.g., ”tuning out” of potentially distressing conversation, not getting into
relationship in the first place
FRALEY & BRUMBAUGH, 2007
* Ps listened to an interview touching on several attachment themes, including
the death of a family member
* Completed two memory tests:
– Word fragment completion task (test of implicit memory)
– Cued-recall test (test of explicit memory)
* Avoidantly attached individuals: worse performance on both types of test
* Deficiency persisted even when monetary award for accurate recall offered
DEFENSIVE STRATEGIES
* In certain contexts, can resemble securely attached individuals
* But some research suggests that defensive maneuvers can break down,
especially under conditions of high stress—e.g.,:
– Divorce (Birnbaum et al., 1997), caring for severely ill child (Berant et al., 2001)
* Inability to acknowledge distress may deprive one of the opportunity to
benefit from social support
* Defensive strategies appear to be cognitively & physiologically effortful
– E.g., show higher levels of physiological arousal during AAI despite reporting
idealized view of relationship with parents (Dozier & Kobak, 1992)
MIKULINCER ET AL., 2004
* Ps asked to recall a painful breakup or separation from partner and then stop
thinking about it
* Normally, see a rebound effect = heightened intrusion of unwanted thoughts
following suppression (try not think of a white bear)
* 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 (Stroop task)
* Also show high availability of positive and low availability of negative self-traits
after thinking of separation
* Added a cognitive load manipulation
* Cognitive load = additional information that has to be held in working
memory
* Memorize & repeat either 1 digit number (low load) or 7 digit number (high
load)
* Under high load, no longer able to avoid rebound of suppressed thoughts
about separation
* Can also no longer maintain defensively positive self-image
ATTACHMENT SYSTEM ACTIVATION
- Appraisal of physical or psychological threat à attachment system activation
- In adults, may or may not lead to overt proximity seeking
– Recall that can rely on both physical and psychological proximity - According to theory, should manifest in heightened accessibility of
attachment-related mental representations
– E.g., thoughts of attachment figure, thoughts related to proximity goals
– Can try to get at this using some indirect measures
MIKULINCER ET AL., 2000
* Ps subliminally primed with threat-related words (e.g., failure) or neutral
words (e.g., hat)
* Accessibility of attachment-related thoughts assessed used a lexical decision
task
– Read string of letters
– Indicate, as quickly as possible, if the letter string is a word
– Faster reaction times (RTs) interpreted as greater accessibility of thoughts
related to target word
RESULTS: NORMATIVE PATTERN
* Compared to neutral word, threat-related words led to faster identification of
proximity-related words (e.g., hug, love) but not positive words without an
attachment connotation
– Effect evident regardless of attachment style
* Also, faster to identify names of attachment figures (but not people who do
not serve attachment functions) when primed with a threat-related word
(Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002)
ANXIOUS PATTERN
* In contrast to secures, high access to proximity-related word even when
primed with neutral words
– Interpreted as chronic activation of the attachment system
* Also in contrast to secures, high accessibility of proximity-related worries (e.g.,
separation, rejection, abandonment)
– Attachment system activation linked with fears of rejection
AVOIDANT PATTERN
* Resemble responses of secures
– Faster RTs for proximity word in stress but not neutral condition
– Low accessibility to proximity worries when primed with stress or neutral
word
* Where they diverge from secures:
– Low accessibility to proximity worries even when primed with attachment related threat word
– Suggests defensive process in play
AVOIDANT PATTERN
* Follow-up study: introduction of cognitive load
– 2 (stress word, neutral word) X 2 (load, nonload)
* For avoidants, faster RTs for both proximity- and distance-related words when
primed with stress word (now resemble anxious participants)
* Suggests that, for avoidants, attachment system activation is also related to
rejection-related worries at the preconscious level
NOTE ON METHODS
* Recall earlier discussion of indirect methods (Lecture 3)
* Pro: Can tap into processes that may not be evident at conscious level
– E.g., avoidants may deny need for love & support at conscious level, but still
evince it at pre-conscious level
* Con: big gap between construct of interest & operationalization
– Assume that RTs for attachment-relevant words reflect attachment system
activation
* Worth noting that findings align with theory
APPRAISALS
OF
ATTACHMENT
FIGURE
AVAILABILITY
Like many other types of social interactions, social support interactions can be
somewhat ambiguous and subject to different interpretations
‘‘I had the worst day at work’’
‘‘Don’t worry about it—
I’m sure you did the
best you could under
the circumstances’’ Supportive?
Dismissive?
Patronizing?
Reassuring?
* Appraisals of attachment figure’s availability are biased by attachment history
& expectations
– Working models of attachment act as the interpretive filters through which
interactions are appraised
* Direct attention, shape construals, organize incoming information
* Particularly influential when level of ambiguity is high
ANXIOUS ATTACHMENT
* Intensify vigilant monitoring of attachment figure’s behaviour
* Bias perception in direction of noticing or imagining insufficient availability or
responsiveness
– E.g., may misinterpret positive signals from others as sarcasm (Noller, 2005)
* Make it more likely that will detect either real or imagined signs of distance or
unavailability
COLLINS & FEENEY, 2004
* Lab study with romantic couples
– Partner A exposed to stressor (expected to give a public speech)
– Partner B writes supportive message to Partner A
* Message is then coded by objective observers
* Attachment anxiety related to less positive appraisals and more negative
appraisals of the note (controlling for objective ratings)
* Respond negatively even to positive relationship events
* Collins et al., 2006:
– Reported greater distress & guilt in response to positive scenarios (e.g.,
imagine that your partner “brought you dinner when you were feeling sick”,
“tried to cheer you up after an upsetting day at work or school”
– Less positive attributions (e.g., believing that partner’s behaviour reflects
genuine love and concern)
– More negative attributions (e.g., believing that partner was motivated by
selfish concerns)
SECURE ATTACHMENT
* Secure working models facilitate positive appraisals of partner’s availability à
i.e., tend to confirm positive view of partner
* Overlook or downplay temporary instances of unresponsiveness or
unavailability
AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT
* Deactivating strategies interfere with monitoring of attachment figure’s
(un)availability à increases the chances that signals of availability will be
missed
* E.g., Sadikaj et al. (2011) event-contingent recording study:
– Blunting of both negative and positive emotional reactions to partner
behaviour
* Not responding with negative affect when partner behaving less warmly,
but also not responding to signs of partner’s availability
IS
PROXIMITY
SEEKING A
VIABLE
OPTION?
- Believed that distress may be safely acknowledged and expressed
- Learned that proximity seeking results in support, protection, & relief of
distress
– Comfortable turning to others for support
– Do not see it as a threat to their autonomy - Believe that distress is manageable and they are capable of dealing with it
– Able to engage in instrumental problem-solving
AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT
* Have learned that proximity seeking may lead to punishment (inattention,
rejection, hostility, etc.)
* Thus, proximity seeking is futile at best, dangerous at worst
* Instead, emphasize self-reliance
– Tendency to see reliance on others & autonomy as incompatible
* Diary study: Inhibited closeness-related goals & withdrew emotionally
from partners on days they had insufficient independence or control in
their relationships (Overall & Sibley, 2009)
SIMPSON ET AL., 1992
* Lab study of heterosexual couples
* Women: expect to participate in mystery stress task
In the next few minutes, you are 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 cannot tell you any more at the
moment. Of course, I will answer any questions or concerns you have after the
experiment is over.
* Brought out to wait with partner (who has not been told anything about the
task)
* Secure women: comfortable seeking support, explicit about expressing desire
for support, amount of support sought increases in proportion with distress
* Avoidant women: inhibited attention seeking as distress grows
– The more strongly the attachment system is activated, the more defensive
processes kick in
ANXIOUS ATTACHMENT
* Perceived signs of attachment figure’s unavailability amplify distress
* Feel incapable of dealing with problem on their own
* Ramp up efforts to gain attachment figure’s care & protection
(hyperactivation of primary strategy)
* Ambivalence—conflict between approach and avoidance goals
– Desperately want reassurance and closeness
– But also fear rejection
– May manifest in indirect support seeking tactics (e.g., sulking, pouting)
* Excessive reassurance seeking: 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 à vicious cycle of
doubt & demoralization, potentially culminating in depression (Shaver,
Schachner, & Mikulincer, 2005)
RELATIONAL
CONSEQUENCES
- What are the implications of these individual differences in attachment for
the key relationship-building processes we have discussed so far?
– Self-disclosure, responsiveness, building of intimacy?
ANXIOUS ATTACHMENT
* Focus on one’s own unfulfilled needs for closeness, fears, & vulnerabilities
* Self-disclosure: often tends to be negative in tone, also indiscriminate &
inappropriate (“too much, too soon”)
– Driven more by desire to merge with another person, garner support,
assuage fear of rejection rather than focus on mutual enjoyment and
reciprocity (like securely attached individuals)
* Attachment anxiety can make it difficult to attend to and accurately decipher
partner’s communications
– Fears of rejection bias perceptions in direction of noticing signs of
insufficient interest, negativity
– Intense self-focus can drain mental resources required for accurate
interpretation of signals
* Overinvolvement in partner’s problems, compulsive caregiving (Kunce &
Shaver, 1994)
– May become overwhelmed by own distress
– Do not match level of care to level of need (e.g., catastrophizing)
– More preoccupied with self-critical thoughts when interacting with
someone who needs care (Mikulincer, 1998)
FRALEY ET AL., 2006
* “Morph” movie paradigm: movie of faces in which a neutral facial expression
gradually changes to an emotional one (anger, happiness, or sadness)
* Ps higher in anxious attachment perceive onset of emotional expression
earlier
* Make more mistakes in judging emotional expression
* Do not make the same mistakes when required to watch movie to the
end
* Heightened vigilance for emotional cues may actually interfere with accuracy
(”jumping to emotional conclusions”)
AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT
* Desire to maintain interpersonal distance & keep attachment system
deactivated
– Inhibition of emotional states incompatible with that goal
* Associated with low levels of self-disclosure
– Contributes to less satisfaction with social support (Anders & Tucker, 2000)
– Less closeness after the 36 questions task (Aron et al., 1997)
* Also seek less information about their partner (Rholes et al., 2007)
* Uncomfortable with partner distress
– Higher levels of partner distress associated with greater withdrawal both in
support provision (Simpsons et al., 1992) and conflict contexts (Barry &
Lawrence, 2013)
– Avoidant men also react with anger when partner who is in need of support
expresses high levels of distress (Rholes et al., 1999)
STABILITY
&
CHANGE
- Bowlby: working models need to be both
“environmentally stable” &
“environmentally labile”
– Stable: provide sense of continuity
despite some fluctuations in
environment
– Labile: help adapt to changes in
environment and relationships with
different people
INTERNAL WORKING MODELS
* Working models—like other schemas—direct attention & influence the way we
interpret, store, & recall information
* Self-perpetuating—provide continuity between early and later attachmentrelated feelings & behaviour
– Perceptual confirmation
* E.g., being overly attentive to signs of inattention may perpetuate anxious
individuals’ insecurity
– Behavioural confirmation
* E.g., avoidants’ cold behaviour may drive away partners—confirming idea that
others cannot be relied on
BEHAVIOURAL CONFIRMATION
* McClure & Lydon, 2014: examined effects of attachment anxiety on first
impressions (speed dating, one-on-one with attractive preferred-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
WITHIN-PERSON VARIATION
105
* Within-person variation in attachment security across different attachment
figures
– The way you relate to mom may not necessarily be the same as you relate to
your romantic partner
* Most people possess relational schemas corresponding to a range of
attachment orientations (Baldwin et al., 1996)
– E.g., even individuals with a global avoidant or anxious orientation have
access to secure representations
* Can be made more accessible in certain contexts
CHANGE OVER TIME
106
* At least 40% of people experience changes in global attachment orientation
over their lifetime (Scharfe, 2006)
* Particularly linked to major stressors or important life transitions (Davila &
Cobb, 2004; Fraley et al., 2020)—e.g.,:
– Health crises
– Bereavement
– Beginning or ending of important romantic relationships
– Marriage & parenthood
* Major stressors & transitions may provide important diagnostic situations about
others’ availability & responsiveness (for better or for worse)
PARTNER BEHAVIOUR
107
* Have focused on top-down processing
– E.g., how schemas shape information processing
* But role for bottom-up processing as well—partner behaviour matters!
* Trust toward partner and perceived goal validation associated with lower
insecurity (Arriaga et al., 2014)
– Trust = sense that partner can be relied on (safe haven)
– Perceived goal validation = sense that partner supports one’s goal pursuits
(secure base)
ARRIAGA ET AL., 2014
108
* Short term: trust may be particularly helpful for reducing attachment anxiety;
goal validation-–avoidance
* But, over time, goal validation particularly important for anxious individuals
– Building up sense of self-efficacy—repairing model of self
* And, over time, trust particularly important for avoidant individuals
– Teaching the individual that close others can be relied on—repairing model
of other
AVOIDANCE & SOCIAL SUPPORT
* Responsive social support fosters attachment security
* But do avoidants benefit from receiving social support from their partners?
* Inconsistent findings:
– May react defensively when receiving support (e.g., Rholes et al., 1999)
* Threat to autonomy & independence
– Other research shows that they benefit from partner support in certain
situations (e.g., Simpson et al., 2007)
TYPE OF SUPPORT
* Emotional support = expression of comfort & caring
* Practical/instrumental support = provision of tangible resources & aid,
problem solving
* Practical support may be more beneficial for avoidantly attached individuals
(Mikulincer & Florian, 1997)
– Unlike emotional support, does not require the kind of discussion of
emotions, affection, intimacy, etc. that avoidants are uncomfortable with
LEVEL OF SUPPORT
* May also depend on the level of support being provided (Girme et al., 2015)
* Recall that more room for schemas to shape perceptions when ambiguity is
high—i.e., when levels of support are low
* Inadequate levels of perceived support confirms expectations that partner
cannot be depended on à threat responses, automatic defenses engaged
GIRME ET AL., 2015
* In low-moderate range: increasing levels of
practical support associated with more
distress, less self-efficacy, greater perceptions
of partner control/criticism, & greater
interpersonal distancing by avoidant
individuals
* However, beyond average levels of support,
increasing levels of partner support have the
OPPOSITE effects
So best to increase practical support a lot
* High levels of support may “break through” avoidant defenses by starkly
contradicting negative expectations
* Suggests that avoidants’ emphasis on independence & self-reliance is a
defensive mechanism
– Want care & support—but also want to protect themselves from hurt
CONSISTENCY & TURBULENCE
* Negative relationship events can undermine attachment security
– E.g., chronic relationship difficulties, breakups
* Recall that consistency matters for fostering attachment security
* Secure individuals expect stability & consistency over time
* When they experience greater fluctuations in relationship-specific security,
evince most pronounced declines in relationship satisfaction and most
pronounced increases in relationship distress
