W3 Lecture Flashcards
Q: Why are caregiver characteristics important to research?
1 in 5 are solo families, to challenge idea that mothers are primary caregiver, typical family forms don’t fit contemporary society
Q: Does the gender of a parent affect attachment security?
No, studies (e.g., Pinquart, 2022) show no significant difference in attachment security between mothers (61%) and fathers (60%).
Q: What does research say about LGBTQ parents and attachment security?
Studies (McConnachie et al., 2020) show that children of lesbian and gay parents develop secure attachments, similar to children of heterosexual parents.
Q: Can children form secure attachments without genetic ties to their caregivers?
Yes, research (e.g., Van der Fries et al., 2009; Golombok et al., 1995) indicates that adopted and ART-conceived children develop secure attachments, needing no genetic relation to form the same quality of attachment
Q: What were 3 key findings of Deneault, Carone, and Madigan (2024) regarding attachment research?
- Less than 1% of studies in the past 100 years have focused on diverse family forms, highlighting a gap in attachment research. 2. Looked at studies using SSP - only 2 done on LGBT parents, and 2 on grandparents. 3. Argued that research in the past made assumptions about caregivers but didn’t ask about LGBTQ or gender so may be data in there reflecting this.
Q: What did Feugé et al. (2020) find about gay fathers and their adopted children?
75% of children were securely attached, and 88% of fathers displayed sensitive parenting. Parental sensitivity was positively associated with secure attachment, supporting the normativity hypothesis.
Q: What is the Sensitivity Hypothesis?
The idea that attachment security is primarily influenced by caregiver responsiveness, the caregiving you’ve experienced, and is the causal, environmental, primary determinant of attachment.
Q: What did Fearon & Roisman (2018) claim about attachment security?
They argued that attachment security is largely determined by the caregiving environment, and that sensitivity to infants’ attachment cues is the primary environmental determinant.
Q: What is caregiver sensitivity?
The ability of a caregiver to recognize, interpret, and respond appropriately to an infant’s cues.
Q: What is a small, moderate, and large effect size?
- Small: r = .10, d = .20, 2. Moderate: r = .30, d = .50, 3. Large: r = .50, d = .80 (Ellis, 2010)
Q: What are three key criteria for establishing a causal relationship?
Covariation (if 1 varies the other also does), non-spuriousness (not influenced by a hidden variable), and temporality (cause must come before the effect, in time) (Menard, 2002).
Q: What are the 3 types of research designs?
- Cross-sectional designs: Describe a phenomenon at a single point in time. 2. Longitudinal designs: Track changes over time to identify predictors. 3. Intervention studies: Assess whether manipulating a variable (e.g., training parents in sensitivity) improves attachment security, identifying possible causes of change.
Q: Longitudinal design 1 - Why does this design fail to establish causality between caregiver sensitivity and attachment security?
Although it shows covariation, it does not rule out alternative explanations (non-spuriousness) or establish that caregiver sensitivity precedes attachment security in a causal manner.
Q: Longitudinal Design 2 (Auto-Regressive Model) - How does this model examine the stability of attachment security and its relationship with caregiver sensitivity?
It tracks attachment security over time while also considering caregiver sensitivity, showing covariation and potential non-spuriousness, but it does not fully establish causal direction.
Q: Longitudinal Design 3 (Cross-Lagged Model) - How does this model improve causal inference compared to previous designs?
By measuring both caregiver sensitivity and attachment security at multiple time points, it helps determine which variable drives change in the other, establishing covariation, potential non-spuriousness, and temporal precedence.
Q: Longitudinal Design 4 (Interventions) - Why is this design the strongest for establishing causality?
The use of a pre-test, post-test, and control group allows for covariation, eliminates alternative explanations, and ensures that the causal factor precedes the outcome.
Q: What is the hypothesized influence of parental sensitivity on child attachment?
Parental sensitivity is hypothesized to influence a child’s attachment security.
Q: What procedure is commonly used to study the relationship between parental sensitivity and attachment?
The Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) is commonly used.
Q: What did Ainsworth et al. (1978) find regarding maternal sensitivity and infant attachment?
In a small sample (N = 23), they found a strong correlation (r = 0.78) between maternal sensitivity and infant attachment security.
Q: What were the findings of De Wolff & Van IJzendoorn (1997) regarding maternal sensitivity?
Their large meta-analysis (N = 1666, 30 studies) found a moderate correlation (r = 0.22) between maternal sensitivity and infant attachment.
Q: How did Lucassen et al. (2011) contribute to understanding paternal sensitivity?
Their meta-analysis on fathers and infants (N = 1355, 16 studies) found a weaker correlation (r = 0.12), suggesting a potentially lower impact of paternal sensitivity.
Q: How did early research compare to later studies regarding the strength of the link between parental sensitivity and attachment security?
Early research suggested a strong link, but larger studies and meta-analyses indicate that the relationship is weaker than originally thought.
Q: Is parental sensitivity the primary determinant of attachment?
The effect may differ based on caregiver type (mother vs. father) and sample size, and so while parental sensitivity is associated with attachment security, it is not the primary determinant.
Q: What did the 2024 meta-analysis on parental sensitivity and attachment find?
Across 175 studies (20,000 children), a small but genuine correlation (r ≈ 0.2) was found between caregiver sensitivity and child attachment.
Q: Was the effect of parental sensitivity on attachment consistent across different groups?
Yes, the effect was similar for mothers, fathers, and adoptive parents, suggesting it is not genetic but environmental.
Q: Did the 2024 meta-analysis find a cross-cultural effect?
Yes, the correlation was consistent across seven geographical regions, indicating a universal association.
Q: How might infant temperament act as a confounding variable in attachment research?
Temperament influences reactivity (response to stimuli) and self-regulation (mood stability), which can affect both caregiver sensitivity and attachment security.
Q: What did Goldsmith et al. (1999) find about the heritability of temperament?
Temperament is approximately 50% heritable.
Q: How does temperament influence attachment security?
It may impact the type of insecure attachment a child develops, especially when caregivers are insensitive.
Q: What were the key findings of Groh et al. (2017) meta-analysis on temperament and attachment?
- Overall security & temperament: Small effect (d = 0.22). Insecure-resistant attachment: Moderate effect (d = 0.27). Other links were weak or non-significant.
Q: What is the main conclusion about temperament’s role in attachment?
Temperament has a small but significant role, particularly in insecure-resistant attachment, but results vary based on how attachment is measured.
Q: What model best explains the relationship between temperament and attachment?
A bi-directional model, where both child temperament and parental sensitivity influence attachment.
Q: Does parental sensitivity influence child attachment security independently of genetics?
Yes, parental sensitivity affects attachment security regardless of genetic factors.
Q: What evidence supports the environmental influence of parental sensitivity on attachment?
Studies on adoptive parents (Stams et al., 2002; Juffer et al., 2005; Schoenmaker et al., 2015) show that adoptive parental sensitivity is linked to attachment security, indicating an environmental rather than genetic effect.
Q: What did Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2003) find about the causal influence of parental sensitivity on child attachment security?
They found that parental sensitivity improved through intervention (d = 0.33), which led to improvements in child attachment security (d = 0.20), suggesting a small causal effect, but it is not the primary determinant of attachment security.
Q: How does caregiver sensitivity relate to attachment security?
The correlation is modest (r = 0.22), and sensitivity accounts for about 5% of attachment security, though child temperament also plays a role.
Q: What do studies suggest about the importance of caregiver sensitivity?
Studies like Groh et al. (2017) highlight that sensitivity is important but likely not the sole determinant of attachment security.
Q: Are there other factors influencing attachment aside from sensitivity?
Yes, factors like parental attachment representation and mind-mindedness, as well as cultural influences, also affect attachment security.
Q: What do studies by Van Ijzendoorn (1995) and Verhage et al. (2016) suggest about parental sensitivity?
Both studies show that adult attachment security correlates with parental sensitivity, and parental attachment representation mediates this relationship.
Q: Is there a genetic influence on parental sensitivity?
No, studies on both bio and adoptive families show no genetic influence on sensitivity.
Q: How significant is parental sensitivity in determining attachment security?
Parental sensitivity has a small effect on attachment security but is not the only influencing factor.
Q: What types of studies support the sensitivity hypothesis?
Longitudinal and correlational studies, along with intervention and genetically-sensitive studies, support the sensitivity hypothesis. Examples include Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2003), Juffer et al. (2005), and Schoenmaker et al. (2015).
Q: How do studies control for confounding variables like child temperament?
Studies such as Groh et al. (2017) use meta-analysis to control for confounding variables like child temperament in their examination of attachment.
Q: Are there other parenting factors that influence attachment aside from sensitivity?
Yes, other factors like mind-mindedness (the use of appropriate mental terms) also correlate with attachment (r = .30) and sensitivity (r = .24), according to Zeegers et al. (2017).
Q: Why is there criticism about focusing on the secure/insecure attachment distinction?
Critics, such as Meins (2017), argue that focusing too much on the secure/insecure distinction overlooks important differences within each group of attachment types, especially in meta-analyses.
Q: How might the sensitivity hypothesis have cultural and contextual limitations?
The sensitivity hypothesis may not be universal, as much of the research comes from Western, urban settings. Sensitive caregiving may vary across different cultures, and many countries have not been extensively studied (Mesman et al., 2018).
Q: What is the Competence Hypothesis?
It suggests that secure attachment leads to positive developmental outcomes across various domains.
Q: What do Bowlby (1947) and Ainsworth (1985) contribute to the Competence Hypothesis?
Bowlby links early maternal separation to negative outcomes, while Ainsworth argues secure infants develop confidence and competence, supporting exploration and learning.
Q: How does attachment influence mental health?
Secure attachment promotes positive mental health, while insecure attachment is linked to internalizing (e.g., anxiety, depression) and externalizing problems (e.g., aggression).
Q: How do different attachment types relate to mental health?
Insecure Resistant: Internalizing problems. Insecure Avoidant: Externalizing problems. Disorganized: Both internalizing and externalizing risks.
Q: What does the meta-analysis by Fearon et al. (2010) reveal about attachment and externalizing problems?
Insecure attachment is a medium predictor of externalizing problems, with the effect being stronger in boys.
Q: What does the meta-analysis by Groh et al. (2012) show about attachment and internalizing problems?
There is a small association between insecure attachment and internalizing problems, with avoidant attachment showing elevated internalizing due to emotion minimization.
Q: What are the key findings on attachment and mental health risks?
Insecure attachment is a risk factor for externalizing problems, with weak associations for internalizing issues. Avoidant attachment is linked to internalizing, and disorganized attachment to externalizing.
Q: How does secure attachment benefit mental health?
It fosters positive working models, better self-regulation, and healthier perceptions of others and self-worth.
Q: How does disorganized attachment affect mental health?
It increases the risk for both internalizing and externalizing problems.
Q: What type of study is needed to test the Competence Hypothesis?
Longitudinal and interventional studies are needed to establish causality and rule out genetic effects, such as using adoptive families.
Q: How does attachment influence social competence?
Secure attachment leads to better social competence, with insecure attachment associated with poorer social skills. A meta-analysis by Groh et al. (2014) found a positive correlation between attachment security and social competence.
Q: What are prosocial behaviors linked to secure attachment?
Securely attached children show more empathy, cooperation, and helpfulness.
Q: How strong is the correlation between security and prosocial behavior?
(Deneault et al., 2023) - The correlation is small (r = 0.19), suggesting it is a beneficial but not a strong predictor.
Q: What confounding factors must be considered in attachment research?
Temperament, genetic factors, and the lack of true longitudinal studies are key factors to consider in research.
Q: What did Stams et al. (2002) find in their adoption study?
Parental sensitivity did not predict outcomes in social competence, internalizing, or externalizing problems, although secure attachment had a small influence on social competence.
Q: What did Van Ijzendoorn et al. (2023) find in their intervention meta-analysis?
Improving parental sensitivity led to improved attachment security, but no significant effect on mental health outcomes (.07) was observed.
Q: Is attachment security a necessary or sufficient cause of mental health problems?
No, attachment security is neither a necessary nor sufficient cause of mental health problems.
Q: What is equifinality in the context of mental health outcomes?
Equifinality refers to different risk factors leading to the same mental health outcome.
Q: What does multifinality mean in terms of mental health?
Multifinality means one risk factor can lead to multiple mental health outcomes.
Q: How can the effect of attachment security on mental health be influenced?
The effect can be influenced by moderating factors, such as other environmental or genetic factors.
Q: Are the relationships between risk factors and mental health outcomes always linear?
No, the relationships may be nonlinear, with complex interactions and combinations of factors.
Q: How might the attachment-mental health link change over time?
The link may change across developmental stages, and its effects may take longer to show, especially in longitudinal studies (De Klyen & Greenberg, 2016).
