Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

PSY246 > Adult attachment > Flashcards

Adult attachment Flashcards

1
Q

John Bowlby

A

secondary drive theory of love

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

Harlow an Harlow

A

monkey study
monkeys wanted comfort not just food
secondary drive theory of love
innate behavioural attachment

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

how is the attachment system activated

A

external - loud noises, strangers, being alone

internal - sickness, hunger, pain

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

when the attachment system is activated what is deactivated?

A

the exploration system (cant play/explore)

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

Secure attachment

A

50-60%
return of mother is solution of the problem
get back to playing

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

ambivalent attachment

A 
10-15%
reunion doesn't calm baby
anger due to being alone
inconsistent care
preoccupied with availability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

avoidant attachment

A

20-25%
reunion is not affective
ignores mum due to experience of rejection
rejecting caregiver

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

disorganised attachment

A

when the threat is also the caregiver

child doesn’t know how to behave

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

internal working models (Bowlby)

A

it is the sum of all your attachments that tailer yours

can also be seen as schemas

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

Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991)

A

split the three styles into 4 along 2 dimensions:

avoidance of emotional intimacy (deactivate attachment)
anxiety about abandonment (hyperactivate attachment)

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

secure attachment predicts

A

academic achievment, skill, attention spans

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

airport seperation study

A 
Separation is the threat (57%) - exhibited more attachment behaviours
Flying together (43%) - less attachment behaviours (less likely to stay in close proximity)
  • Concerns about availability/accessibility results in increased attachment behaviours.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

intrapersonal correlates and consequences

A

self esteem, mental health, coping, perceived social support, pain tolerance, emotional regulation

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

interpersonal correlates and consequences

A

caregiving, parenting, empathy, prosocial behaviour

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

attachment styles as schemas

A

we can have multiple attachment styles, stored in schema
can be situation specific
can be made salient by priming
can be relationship specific

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

Rowe and Carnelly (2003)

A

P’s recalled words in a way congruent with the primed style
secure = more positive interpersonal expectation
text message can prime attachment

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

internal working models

A

templates of beliefs about the self and others based on a history of caregiving experiences

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

positive view of self, positive view of others

A

secure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

negative view of self, positive view of others

A

preoccupied (want to be completely emotionally intimate with others)

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

positive view of self, negative view of others

A

dismissing (don’t depend on others)

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

negative view of self, negative view of others

A

fearful (want emotional closeness but don’t trust anyone, worry about being hurt)

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

high avoidance, low anxiety

A

dismissing

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

high avoidance, high anxiety

A

fearful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

high anxiety, low avoidance

A

preoccupied

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

low anxiety, low avoidance

A

secure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

appraisal of self worth and self confidence

A

measures adult attachment style and self esteem
60 studies measuring this (Mikulincer and Shaver, [in]2007)
anxious - (preoccupied/fearful) low self esteem, high anxiety
avoidant - less clear

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Rosenberg self esteem scale

A

cross cultural study

negative association between attachment anxiety and self esteem in 49 countries

28
Q

Pietromonacco and Barrett (1997)

A

high anxiety individuals reported negative self evaluations after interactions longer than 10 mins, relating to others and feeling bad about the self

29
Q

defensive self enhancement

A

avoidant
inflating self-views and deny or suppress negative information about themselves in order to be self-reliant.
Self view is not that genuine.
especially when under threat

30
Q

poor self clarity

A

avoidant

poor understanding of who they are as a person

31
Q

Mikulincer (1998)

A

defensive self enhancement under threat
electrodes on skin
told either a lie detector or electrical activity monitor
told they failed (mild threat) or not

anxious - endorsed more negative traits, showed helplessness and self defeatism (= poor memory recall)

avoidant - showed resilience, remembered more positive adjectives when under threat
bogus pipeline - lie detector = wiped defensive enhancement

32
Q

sustaining self-related vulnerabilities

A

avoidance and anxiety associated with patterns of vulnerability that serve to sustain views about the self and others

33
Q

hopeless cognitive style

A

Abramson et al (1989)
self defeating attribution trial
reinforces blame, hopelessness and positivity
cant do it by themselves, evoke caregiver response

34
Q

patterns of feedback seeking

A

Swann (1990)
self verification hypothesis
seek feedback to validate our self knowledge

35
Q

anxious view of others

A

others are difficult to understand

36
Q

avoidant view of others

A

humans aren’t altruistic and aren’t willing to stand up for their beliefs

37
Q

insecure view of others

A

tent to lack self esteem for, and acceptance of others

- they have doubts about peoples trustworthiness

38
Q

Brennan and Morris (1997)

A

asked P’s to imagine their romantic partner being asked questions about them.

Negative views of self cause insecure individuals to keep on seeking confirmatory negative information (self perpetuating cycle).

39
Q

collins and feeney (2004)

A

dating couples were informed that one member of the couple would perform a stressful task
supportive or ambiguously supportive note
no significant attachment style difference in appraisals of supportive notes.

    • Insecure - P’s rated ambiguous notes as less supportive, more upsetting and more negative than secure P’s.
    • insecure P’s rated their partners behaviour as less supportive [than the researchers].

Ambiguous notes activated the attachment-related worries - heightened access to negative working models of others - negatively biased insecure P’s appraisals of the note causing them to negatively reconstruct their partners supportiveness during the interaction.

40
Q

Baldwin et al (1993)

A

examined access to beliefs about partners supportiveness using lexical decision task. P’s read sentences with either an attachment context or a non attachment context.
– target strings of letters depicted positive partner behaviours (“support”),
negative partner behaviours (“leave”),
neutral behaviours (“read”) or
non words (“sccijnfv”)

Secure P’s had shorter reaction times to words naming positive behaviours within interpersonal context than to negative behaviour words.

Insecure P’s has faster reaction times when responding to negative behaviour words than to positive behaviour words.

41
Q

conclusion

A

Anxious people view relationship partners as a ‘saviour’ but they also hold negative views and biases against perceiving relationship partners good intentions as genuine.

Avoidant - positive views of self based on self-enhancement.

42
Q

preconscious activation

A

Mikulincer et al (2000)
subliminal priming task
faster RT for proximity related words after threat
anxious - faster RT to all attachment words (hyper-activating strategies keep rejected related thoughts available in WM)

avoidant - faster reaction times when under cognitive load
(worries about rejection and seperation inaccessible until threat prime is under cognitive load)

43
Q

attachment and emotional regulation

A

Mikulincer and Shaver
3 segmental model
- activation of attachment system (proximity seeking)
- consequences of proximity seeking (distinction between attachments)
- secondary strategies used if priming fails (distinction between avoidant and anxious)

neural circuits are reinforced
influenced by context - remind individual about secure attachment = feel more secure

44
Q

control system approach to attachment behaviour

A

Mikulincer and Shaver
3 segmental model

  • activation of attachment system (proximity seeking)
  • consequences of proximity seeking (distinction between attachments)
  • secondary strategies used if primary fails (anxiety or avoidant)

neural circuits that are used are reinforced
influenced by context - remind an individual about secure attachment = feel more secure

45
Q

broaden and build cycle of security

A

repeated exposure leads to positive working models of the self and others
person develops procedural knowledge of how to deal with stress (secure based script)
- will be able to seek proximity and intimacy, engage in problem solving (less cognitive load)

46
Q

threat is

A

subjective

47
Q

threat activated attachment system

A

can be unconscious (reaction times in priming task)

can come from within (thoughts, feelings, emotion)

48
Q

what constitutes proximity seeking in adults

A

attachment system is activated preconsciously - easy to access attachment related thoughts

conscious thoughts of seeking proximity

  • steps take longer in adulthood
  • desire can be settled mentally
49
Q

secure based script

A

procedural memory of how to feel better when you are sad

50
Q

attachment security

A

healthy, flexible, reality attuned

- allows emotion to be expressed without defensive distortion

51
Q

attachment security

A

healthy, flexible and reality attuned

allows emotion to be expressed without defensive distortion

52
Q

attachment insecurities

A

distortion or denial of emotional response
dysfunctional rumination on threats
poor coping skills

53
Q

individual differences in attachment styles affect

A

appraisal of emotional events

how we regulate and express emoiton

54
Q

preconscious activation

A

Mikulincer et al (2000)
subliminal priming task
faster RT for proximity related words after threat
anxious - faster RT to all attachment words (hyper-activating strategies keep rejected related thoughts available in WM)

avoidant - faster reaction times when under cognitive load
(worries about rejection and seperation inaccessible until threat prime is under cognitive load)

55
Q

broaden and build cycle of security

A

attachment figures ready and available
individuals recover from threat well
repeated exposure leads to positive working models of self and others

develop a secure based script

  • will be able to seek proximity and intimacy
  • engage in problem solving (less cognitive load)
  • acknowledge and communicate distress
56
Q

bogstrom and johnson (2004)

A

mimicry response to facial expressions

dismissing individuals controlled to suppress emotion (lead to opposite facial expression) unless under cognitive load

57
Q

threat-activated attachment system

A

can be unconscious/administered subliminally (RT in priming)

can be from within (thoughts, feelings, emotions)

58
Q

what constitutes proximity seeking in adults

A

attachment system is activated preconsciously - easy to access attachment related thoughts

conscious thoughts of seeking proximity

  • desire can be mentally settled
  • the two steps (seeking and getting proximity) take longer in adulthood
59
Q

what are emotions

A

Functional, organised systems of evaluative thoughts and action tendencies - generated by the appraisal of internal and external events (stimuli) in relation to our own goals and concerns.

60
Q

individual differences in attachment styles affect

A

appraisal of emotional events

how we regulate our expression of emotion

61
Q

attachment insecurities

A

distortion or denial of emotional response, dysfunctional rumination on threats and poor coping strategies

62
Q

attachment anxiety associated with

A

distress intensifying appraisal (want caregivers to see they need help)

63
Q

meredith, strong and feeney (2005)

A

chronic pain patients

neural pathways for pain are different
secure = less threatening, lower threat appraisal (how much they appraised pain as a threat)

64
Q

kirtpatric et al (1996)

A

womens physiological responses to stressful events with/without a romantic partner

secure = milder stress response in both conditions
insecure = higher stress in presence of partner
65
Q

diamond et al (2006)

A

electrodes when doing stressful task
avoidance = greater reactivity
high avoidance = no correlation between what they said and the skin conductance recording

66
Q

bogstrom and johnson (2004)

A

mimicry response to facial expressions

dismissing individuals

PSY246 (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions