333 final Flashcards
(434 cards)
four features of the attachment system
- proximity seeking and maintenance
- separation distress
- safe havden
- secure base
what happens if kid perceives their caregiver is not near, attentive, or responsive?
- activation of attachment system (it’s not always activated—it turns on with a threat)
- triggers separation distress = proximity seeking
- if caregiver attends to needs = used as a safe haven (caregiver soothes the infant and regulated distress = child feels safe and secure and loved)
- if attachment system is activated = exploration behaviour is inhibited
Strange Situation
- Paradigm designed to systematically assess children’s attachment to a specific caregiver
- Caregiver and child play in a room together
- Examines how children react to: separations from caregiver, reunions with caregiver, meeting a stranger (if caregiver is present, then if caregiver is absent)
secure attachment style
- 60%
- Child distressed when parent left, but able to be soothed by stranger and seeks comfort upon reunion with parent; explores the room when parent is present
- parents’ behaviour: generally supportive/sensitive to child’s needs, affectionate, expresses positive emotions toward child, fosters autonomy and exploration (encouraging them to explore new things)
- child learns that proximity seeking is a good strategy to soothe distress/have needs met
avoidant attachment style
- 15%
- Child does not display signs of distress upon separation from parent, plays by themselves, and disinterested in parent upon reunion
- doesn’t matter if the parent or the caregiver are present (very unusual)
- parents’ behaviour: consistently insensitive to child’s signals (avoids close contact, rejects bids for contact, may be angry or impatient, discourages displays of emotion) OR parent is consistently over-bearing and intrusive (controlling, stifling autonomy and independence—this isn’t meeting child’s needs for autonomy)
- in real life: parent might not be physically present a lot of the time or emotionally distant
- child learns that: proximity seeking is not a good strategy to soothe distress/to have needs met
- deactivation of the attachment system (avoiding proximity, but physiologically similar distress)
deactivation of the attachment system
- attention diverted away from threat, avoid proximity of caregiver when distressed, cope with distress by suppressing it or avoiding situations that elicit distress
- physiologically, they’re showing just as much distress as secure kids (heart rate, cortisol, etc.) but they cope with it by not showing that they’re upset
anxious/ambivalent attachment styles
- Child extremely distressed upon separation, not soothed by stranger, but takes a long time to be soothed upon reunion with parent/resists parent’s attempt to soothe; stays close to parent when parent is in the room and doesn’t explore much
- clingy, opposite of avoidant
- parents’ bx: inconsistent in reacting to child’s distress, sometimes soothing and attentive and other times insensitive (dismissive or critical or angry)
- child learns that proximity is sometimes a good strategy to soothe distress, but not always
- hyperactivation of the attachment system
hyperactivation of attachment system
- hypervigilance to threat and exaggerated perceptions of threat, excessive proximity-seeking of caregiver when distressed, cope with distress by heightening it
disorganized attachment style
- Behaviour is contradictory. Seems to want to approach parent but also sees them as a source of fear. Frequently appear dazed and dissociated.
- this wasn’t observed initially by Ainsworth
- might behave very differently within and between sessions
- parents’ bx: frightens the child, may be harsh or abusive, often struggle with severe mental health issues
- child learns that: proximity seeking often results in feeling scared, caregiver is unpredictable and cannot be trusted
- attachment system motivates them to seek proximity, but they are also motivated to withdraw because of fear = contradictory pattern = daze and dissociation
other factors that influence attachment in childhood
- infant temperament: Infants vary in sensitivity and how easy they are to soothe, Infants that are more sensitive are more likely to develop anxious attachment (emotional needs are greater and difficult to meet—more demanding on the parent), Those that are less sensitive are more likely to develop secure or avoidant attachment
- socialization of gender roles: Males are more likely to develop avoidant (vs. anxious) attachment, Females more likely to develop anxious (vs. avoidant) attachment
- safety vs. danger of environment: More likely to develop insecure attachment when growing up in more dangerous environment (insecure attachment may be more adaptive in these settings—hypervigilance to threat, concealing emotikonal reactions)
how does attachment style differ in function in adulthood
- attachment relationships have similar functions in adulthood as they do in childhood: Proximity seeking/maintenance, separation distress, safe haven, secure base
- Romantic partners are most common attachment figures in adults (and best friends)
- Adult attachment style is related to childhood experiences due to internal working models
internal working models
- mental represnetations of the self, of attachment figures, relationships in general that are constructed as a result of experiences with caregivers
- filter interpretations of interactions wih attachment figures, guide expectations about relationships and social situations throughout life
two dimensions of internal working models
- anxiety dimension: vigilance and concerns about rejection and abandonment, to what extent is the self worthy of love? (low anxiety = self is worthy of love, high anxiety = concerns about rejection)
- avoidance dimension: discomfort with closeness and intimacy, to what extent are others reliable? (low avoidance = others are reliable)
low avoidance, low anxiety
- secure (comfortable with closeness and interdependence, but also seeks autonomy)
- self is worth and others are trustworthy
- problem with attachment figure = able to bring it up and able to receive feedback
low avoidance, high anxiety
- anxious attachment (fear rejection and abandonment, value closeness, believe the self isn’t good enough)
- heightened need for reassurance, risk of becoming overly controlling/clingy
low anxiety, high avoidance
- dismissive-avoidant (avoid seeking closeness to protect self from being let down by others, don’t trust that others can meet needs)
- emotionally distant, prioritize independence, find it difficult to rely on others
high anxiety, high avoidance
- fearful-avoidant/disorganized (strong need for closeness but distrusts others and sees self as deserving of rejection)
- inconsistent way of meeting attachment needs, behaving contradictorily
- like seeking relationships, then disengaging when they get one
- or not seeking relationships, then getting really clingy when they meet someone or withdrawing on other days
study: does attachment style influence support-seeking behaviour in couples?
- method; heterosexual couples
- woman told she will have to complete an anxiety provoking activity, women’s bx toward her partner coded for anxiety and support-seeking
- results: more anxiety related to more support seeking for secures, but less support seeking for avoidants (consistent with children’s bx in the strange situation)
- positive linear for secure, but negative linear for avoidant
- it’s only under threat that the attachment system is activated
- at low anxiety, avoidant people were actually seeking more support
dismissive vs. fearful avoidant
- may look very similar on the surface
- dismissive: deactivate both overt attachment bx AND covert (internal) attachment system
- dismissive = reduced physiological response when imagining separation from partner (both overt and covert responses)
- fearful: only deactivate overt attachment bx BUT are unable to deactivate covert attachment system
- fearful = elevated physiological response when imagining separation from partner
adult attachment styles distribution
- 56% secure (vs. 60% in kids)
- 25% avoidant (vs. 15% in kids)
- 19% anxious (vs. 10% in kids)
measures of attachment
- continuous measurement of attachment: researchers no longer categorize people into attachment styles (categorically)
- attachment measured continuously
- degree of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance measures separately
- anxiety: “My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away.” “I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me.”
- avoidance: “I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.” “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners.”
secure attachment correlations
- Higher self-esteem
- Greater tendency to seek out social support
- Better conflict-resolution skills
- Higher life satisfaction
- Better relationship satisfaction
- most adaptive pattern
study: How does attachment style influence partner selection and relationship stability?
- method: heterosexual couples longitudinal for 3yrs
- time 1 results: no anxious-anxious or avoidant-avoidant pairs, relationship satisfaction lower in relationships with at least one insecurely attached partner, lowest relationship satisfaction in anxious-avoidant couples
- anxious-avoidant pair: chronic relationship dissatisfaction (anxious partner wants more closeness than avoidant is willing to provide = feeling like ‘too much’, avoidant partner wants more independence than anxious partner is willing to accept = feeling suffocated), attachment needs fundamentally at odds
- at 3 yrs FU: avoidant-anxious pairs were most likely to still be together (despite lower relationship satisfaction results from Time 1)
what explains why anxious-avoidant couples stay together?
- despite lower relationship satisfaction, were more likely to still be together in a 3yr FU study
- familiarity: Each partner’s attachment pattern is consistent with internal working model (For anxiously attached partner, avoidant’s distance mirrors their experience of inconsistent caregiving, triggering their pursuit of closeness + For the avoidant partner, anxious partner’s pursuit of closeness mirrors their experiences of attachment figures being intrusive or not meeting their needs (e.g. for autonomy), triggering their instinct to retreat and protect independence)
- complimentary dynamic: Anxious partner’s pursuit of closeness feeds into the avoidant’s tendency to withdraw, creating a maladaptive cycle