Attachment (Final)

Question 1

Bowlby’s Attachment Theory

Answer 1

Children are biologically predisposed to develop an attachment bond to caregivers as a means of increasing chances of their survival. Attachment is crucial for children’s psychological well-being and forms the basis of personality development, emotion regulation, and self-esteem. Development and quality of a child’s attachments are highly dependent on their experiences with caregivers.

Question 2

Main Characteristics of Attachment System

Answer 2

1. Proximity seeking and maintenance (is caregiver near, attentive, responsive?)
2. Separation distress (If caregiver is not available. Will then continue to proximity seek)
3. Safe Haven (If caregiver is available. Effective co-regulation. Child feels secure and loved)
4. Secure base (Proximity maintenance of caregiver is being met).

Question 3

The Strange Situation

Answer 3

Paradigm designed to systematically assess children’s attachment to a specific caregiver. Caregiver and child play together. Examines how children react to: Separations from caregiver, reunions with caregiver, meeting a stranger.

Question 4

Attachment Styles in the Strange Situation - Secure

Answer 4

60%; Child was 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.

Question 5

Attachment Styles in the Strange Situation - Avoidant

Answer 5

15%; Child does not display signs of distress upon separation from parent, plays by themselves, and disinterested in parent upon reunion.

Question 6

Attachment Styles in the Strange Situation - Anxious/ambivalent

Answer 6

10%; Child extremely distressed upon separation, not soothed by stranger, but takes a long time to be soothed upon reunion with parent/resists parents attempt to soothe; stays close to parent when parent is in the room and doesn’t explore much.

Question 7

Attachment Styles in the Strange Situation - Disorganized

Answer 7

15%; Behaviour is contradictory. Seems to want to approach parent but also seems them as a source of fear. Frequently appear dazed and dissociated.

Question 8

Securely Attached Children

Answer 8

Parent’s behaviour: Generally supportive/sensitive to child’s needs. Affectionate and expresses frequent positive emotions towards child. Fosters autonomy and exploration. Child learns that: Proximity seeking is a good strategy to soothe distress / to have needs met.

Question 9

Parents of Avoidantly Attached Children

Answer 9

Parent’s behaviour:
–> Consistently insensitive to the child’s signals.
–> Avoids close contact or rejects child’s bids for contact.
–> May be angry or impatient
–> Discourages displays of emotion.
–> OR parent is consistently over-bearing and intrusive.
Child learns that: Proximity seeking is not a good strategy to soothe distress / to have needs met. 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.

Question 10

Attachment System: Security Based Strategy (Avoidantly Attached)

Answer 10

Separation Distress
Proximity Seeking –> Is caregiver available?
–> If yes: Safe Haven
–> If no: Is proximity a viable option? If no: Deactivation of the attachment system

Question 11

Parents of Anxiously Attached Children

Answer 11

Parent’s behaviour: Inconsistent in reacting to child’s distress, sometimes soothing and attentive and other times insensitive. Child learns that: Proximity is sometimes a good strategy to soothe distress, but not always. Hyper activation of attachment system: Hypervigilance to threat and exaggerated perceptions of threat, excessive proximity-seeking of caregiver when distressed, cope with distress by heightening it.

Question 12

Attachment System: Security Based Strategy (Anxiously attached)

Answer 12

Separation Distress
Proximity Seeking –> Is caregiver available?
–> If yes: Safe Haven
–> If no: Is proximity a viable option? If yes: Hyperactivation of the attachment system.

Question 13

Parents of Children with Disorganized Attachment

Answer 13

Parents behaviour: 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 extremely unpredictable and cannot be trusted.

Question 14

Other Factors Influencing Attachment: Infant’s temperament

Answer 14

Infant’s vary in sensitivity and how easy they are to soothe. Infant’s that are more sensitive are more likely to develop anxious attachment. Those that are less sensitive are more likely to develop secure or avoidant attachment.

Question 15

Other Factors Influencing Attachment: Socialization of gender roles

Answer 15

Males are more likely to develop avoidant (vs. anxious) attachment. Females are more likely to develop anxious (vs. avoidant) attachment.

Question 16

Other Factors Influencing Attachment: Safety vs. danger of environment

Answer 16

More likely to develop insecure attachment when growing up in more dangerous environment.

Question 17

Attachment in Adulthood

Answer 17

Attachment relationships have similar functions in adulthood as they do in childhood: Proximity seeking/maintenance, separation, safe haven, secure base. Romantic partners are most common attachment figures in adults (best friends too). Adult attachment style is related to childhood experiences due to internal working models.

Question 18

Internal Working Models

Answer 18

Mental representations of the self, of attachment figures, and of relationships in general that are constructed as a result of experiences with caregivers. Filter through which interactions with attachment figures are interpreted throughout life. Guide expectations about relationships throughout life. Dimensions of low and high avoidance, and low and high anxiety.

Question 19

Internal Working Models: Avoidance Dimension

Answer 19

Discomfort with closeness and intimacy. To what extent are others reliable? Low avoidance = others are reliable.

Question 20

Internal Working Models: Anxiety Dimension

Answer 20

Vigilance and concerns about rejection and abandonment. To what extent is the self worthy of love? Low anxiety = self is worthy of love.

Question 21

Internal Working Models: Secure

Answer 21

Fits into low anxiety and low avoidance dimension. Comfortable with closeness and interdependence, but also seeks autonomy.

Question 22

Internal Working Models: Anxious

Answer 22

Fit into high anxiety and low avoidance dimension. Fear of rejection and abandonment because believes self is “not good enough”. Leads to a heightened need for reassurance and becoming overly controlling/clingy.

Question 23

Internal Working Models: Dismissive-avoidant

Answer 23

Fits into low anxiety and high avoidance dimension. Avoid seeing closeness to protect self from being led down by others. Often emotionally distant, prioritize independence, and find it difficult to trust/rely on others.

Question 24

Internal Working Models: Fearful-avoidant/Disorganized

Answer 24

Fits into high anxiety and high avoidance dimension. Strong need for closeness but distrusted others and sees self as deserving of rejection. Leads to inconsistent way of meeting attachment needs.

Question 25

Support Seeking in Couples (Simpson, 1992)

Answer 25

Does attachment style influence support-seeking behaviour in couples? Method: 83 heterosexual couples. Women told that she will have to complete an "anxiety provoking activity". Women's behaviour towards her partner coded for anxiety and support-seeking. Results: More anxiety, related to more support seeking for secures, but less support seeking for avoidant. --> Consistent with children's behaviour in the Strange Situation.

Question 26

Distinguishing being Dismissive and Fearful Avoidance

Answer 26

Dismissive-avoidants: Deactivate both overt attachment behaviours AND covert (internal) attachment system. Reduced physiological response imagining separation from partner. Fearful avoidants: Only deactivate overt attachment behaviours, BUT are unable to deactivate cover attachment system. Elevated physiological response when imagining separation from partner.

Question 27

Adult Attachment Style Distributions

Answer 27

56% secure (vs. 60% in kids) 25% avoidant (vs. 15% in kids) 19% anxious (vs. 10% in kids)

Question 28

Continuous Measurement of Attachment

Answer 28

Researchers tend to no longer categorize people into attachment styles (categorical approach). Attachment is measured using a continuous approach: Degree of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance measures separately. Anxiety: "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."

Question 29

Outcomes of Secure vs. Insecure Attachment

Answer 29

Secure attachment (low anxiety and low avoidance) associated with: Higher self esteem, greater tendency to seek out social support, better conflict-resolution skills, higher life satisfaction, better relationship satisfaction.

Question 30

Attachment and Partner Selection (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994)

Answer 30

Study: How does attachment style influence partner selection and relationship stability? Method: 354 heterosexual couples followed for 3 years. 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.

Question 31

Attachment and Partner Selection (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994): Anxious-Avoidant Pair

Answer 31

Chronic relationship dissatisfaction. Anxious parter wants more closeness than avoidant is willing to provide: ends up feeling not good enough and "too much". Avoidant partner wants more independence than anxious partner is willing to accept: ends up feeling trapped and suffocated.

Question 32

Attachment and Partner Selection (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994): Follow up

Answer 32

At follow-up 3 years later: avoidant-anxious pairs most likely to still be together. Strange given relationship satisfaction results from Time 1.

Question 33

Explaining the Stability of the Anxious-Avoidant Pair - Familiarity

Answer 33

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.

Question 34

Explaining the Stability of the Anxious-Avoidant Pair - Complimentary dynamic

Answer 34

Anxious partner's pursuit of closeness feeds into the avoidant' tendency to withdraw, creating a maladaptive cycle.

Question 35

Attachment from Infancy to Adulthood (Fraley et al., 2013)

Answer 35

Do caregiving experiences in childhood predict adult attachment style? Method: Longitudinal study of 707 participants from childhood to age 18. Assessed quality of caregiving experiences at various points in childhood: Maternal sensitivity, Maternal depression, Father's absence. Assessed adult attachment style at age 18.

Question 36

Attachment from Infancy to Adulthood (Fraley et al., 2013): Results

Answer 36

Less supportive parenting and family instability predicted attachment insecurity in adulthood. Avoidance at age 18 predicted by: Lower maternal sensitivity, Father's absence, Lower quality friendships. Anxiety at age 18 predicted by: Higher maternal depression, Lower quality friendships. Evidence that there's an association between childhood caregiving experiences and attachment in adulthood. The size of effect of friendship experiences is similar to the size of the effect of caregiving experiences.

Question 37

Attachment from Infancy to Adulthood BUT... (Fraley & Roisman, 2019)

Answer 37

Across longitudinal studies, average correlation of 0.15 between childhood caregiving experiences and adult attachment style. Suggests that the effect is small and that some people exhibit incongruent patterns: Positive early caregiving in insecure attachment in adulthood, Negative early caregiving in secure attachment in adulthood.

Question 38

Foundations Are Important, But Not Fate (Fraley & Roisman, 2019)

Answer 38

We are shaped by early caregiving experiences, but these foundations are not fate. Friendships in childhood are just as important as experiences with caregivers. Provide opportunities for internal working models to be tested and to have expectations either reinforced or disconfirmed.

Question 39

The Role of Internal Working Models (Confirmation bis & Selection effect)

Answer 39

Internal working models contribute to the stability of attachment styles over time. Confirmation bias: People are likely to interpret ambiguous social information in ways that are consistent with their internal working model. Selection effect: People tend to select partners that are consistent with their internal working models (e.g. partner selection study from earlier).

Question 40

Stability in Adult Attachment? (Baldwin & Fehr, 1995)

Answer 40

Method: Assessed people's attachment style at 2 time points a few weeks apart. Results: At Time 2, 70% of people classified with same attachment style as Time 1. BUT 30% classified with a different attachment style. Suggests that attachment is less stable than would be theoretically predicted.

Question 41

Stability in Adult Attachment: Who is changing? (Baldwin & Fehr, 1995)

Answer 41

% of people with Different Attachment tat Time 2: Secure: 12% Avoidant: 33% Anxious: 55%

Question 42

Life Events and Changes to Attachment (Fraley et al., 2021)

Answer 42

Method: Longitudinal study of about 4000 people (between 6-40 months). At multiple time points, reported on: Life events experienced since last time point, Attachment avoidance and anxiety.

Question 43

Life Events and Changes to Attachment (Fraley et al., 2021): Results

Answer 43

Many life events lead to temporary changes in attachment security. Events associated with decreased attachment security: Getting into an argument wit partner, being physically apart from partner, being sick. Events associated with increased attachment security: Dating someone new, partner did something special for the person, work promotion, going on vacation.

Question 44

Life Events and Changes to Attachment (Fraley et al., 2021): How enduring are these changes?

Answer 44

In general, people revert back to their typical level of attachment security. BUT, about 25% of events led to a more enduring change in attachment.

Question 45

Increasing Attachment Security (Gilath et al., 2016; Hudson et al., 2020; Arriaga et al., 2018)

Answer 45

Age: People become less anxiously attached as they get older. Less clear results for avoidance. Wanting to become more securely attached is associated with increases in attachment security for a 4-month period. Fostering more secure mental models: Anxiously attached: Foster a secure model of self learning to rely on others less for validation and learning to feel capable and valued in personal domains. Avoidantly attached: Foster a secure model of others by challenging self to depend on others and self-disclose more. Psychotherapy is associated with increased attachment security.

Question 46

Multiple Attachment Styles (Baldwin et al 1996)

Answer 46

Do we have the same attachment styles across relationships? Method: Listed 10 most impactful relationships. Rated attachment style in each specific relationship. Assessed general attachment style: How you are in relationships generally?

Question 47

Multiple Attachment Styles (Baldwin et al 1996): Results

Answer 47

Everyone has relationships characterized by each of the 3 attachment styles: Secure, avoidant, anxious. Regardless of general attachment style, the majority of a person's relationships are secure. General attachment style is related to the prevalence of your relationships fitting a specific attachment style relative to other people. People who show a general avoidant attachment style have more avoidant relationships than the securely or anxiously attached people do. People who show a general anxious attachment style have more anxiously attached relationships that the securely or avoidantly attached people do.

Question 48

Implications of Multiple Attachment Styles

Answer 48

Everybody has relationships that are characterized by all 3 attachment styles: Contributes to within person fluctuations in attachment styles. Suggests that these fluctuations in attachment style may be a function of which attachment model is cognitively accessible at a given moment (i.e. different relationship partners or events prime different attachment styles).

Question 49

Contextual Activation of Attachment (Tamarha & Lyon, 1998)

Answer 49

Does priming a specific attachment model affect coping with stress? Method: Recruited female students. Experimental manipulation: Secure relationship: Primed warm/supportive relationship. Insecure relationship: Primed critical/judgment relationship Control: No prime Imagine themselves with unplanned pregnancy. Assessed: Coping strategy and general attachment style.

Question 50

Contextual Activation of Attachment (Tamarha & Lyon, 1998): Results

Answer 50

People primed with warm/supportive relationships were more likely to seek emotional support than control group. People primed with critical/judgmental relationship were less likely to engage in growth-oriented coping (emphasizing learning from challenges) than control group. Coping responses unrelated to general attachment style. Shows that attachment styles can be primed and unfenced behaviour in theoretically consistent ways.

Question 51

Stability of Attachment in Specific Relationships

Answer 51

Stability of attachment is moderated by relationship length. Attachment style is more stable longer relationships: More entrenched patterns. Implies that people will have more stable attachment styles with their parents and other people they've known for al long time than with romantic partners or newer friends.

Question 52

Putting It All Together

Answer 52

Attachment at any given moment is determined by: 1. Chronic/general attachment style: Influenced by caregiver experiences, past important relationships (childhood friendships), some major life events, age. 2. State level of attachment: Current and recent life events, most recent interaction with an attachment figure (priming), relationship length.