Attachment: Predictors and Consequences

Question 1

what should bowlby’s research not be limited to?

Answer 1

heterosexual mothers and their biological children, although this is the vast majority of studies
- Bowlby only discussed the importance of early caregivers towards attachment

Question 2

what do national household statistics show?

Answer 2

• Tells us the majority of parents are in paid employment, the idea that mothers are the sole provider of care may no longer fit with out view of family
• However mothers still appear to do the majority of caring responsibilities

Question 3

types of families in the 21st century

Answer 3

• solo-parent families (15% of families in the UK, 20% of these are single fathers)
• LGBTQ families
• adoption, fostering, and assisted reproduction
• grandparents and blended families

Question 4

What do contemporary family types tell us

Answer 4

• Not all families in the uk are two parent households
• There is a changing demographic of family life/formation

Question 5

fox (1991) characteristics of the caregiver

Answer 5

found 65.5% of children were securely attached to their fathers

– attachments can be formed outside of maternal relationships

Question 6

ven den fries (2009) adoption studies

Answer 6

observed no difference in security of adopted and non-adopted children after 12 months, and slight evidence of lower security before 12 months

• • Maybe because children after 12 months have a more prolonged exposure to adverse circumstances

no difference between security of foster children and biological children

Question 7

golombok (1995) assisted reproduction

Answer 7

found no biological influence of security and representations of seperation anxiety in children, by studying samples from IVF and egg and sperm donation

Question 8

mcconnachie (2010) LGBTQ families

Answer 8

heterosexual couples’ children had lower levels of secure attachment than gay or lesbian parents between 10-14 years

• helpful in advancing the rights of lgbtq families, informing law changes

Question 9

what are contemporary family type studies evidence of?

Answer 9

• caregiving quality is more important for attachment than caregiver gender or sexual identity or biological relatedness
• there is still a lot of research to be done
• e.g. some cultures people live in multigenerational households so PCG can be a grandparent

Question 10

sensitivity hypothesis

Answer 10

early attachment is dependent on caregivers’ responsiveness to signals

causes of variation in attachment are largely environmental due to attachment cues/communication

Question 11

Understanding effect size

Answer 11

Question 12

caregiver sensitivity (ainsworth, 1974)

Answer 12

refers to the ability to perceive and interpret infant signals, and to respond appropriately and promptly

1. awareness of signals
2. interpretation of signals
3. responding appropriately
4. responding promptly

Question 13

what did menard (2002) claim developmental theories must be established by?

Answer 13

• observed variables must co-vary
• covariation must not be spurious
• causal factors must precede outcomes (temporal relationship )

Question 14

What is an autoregressive longitudinal design

Answer 14

To rule out baseline levels of attachment, we need to measure attachment at the earlier time point as well
- By measuring both time points we can then say if sensitivity lead to change in attachment
- potentially rules out supiriousness

Question 15

What is a cross-lagged longitutional design

Answer 15

This lets us work out which thing drives change in which thing
- does x lead to change in y or the other way around?
- to overcome this, we measure both things twice, comparing which one has the strongest effect to find out which causes which
- allows for casual factor precedes outcome

Question 16

what are interventions longitudinal design

Answer 16

We do something in between the observation periods
- 1 group gets sensitivity training, other group gets nothing
- Follow up get measured on both measures so did training make parents more sensitive AND did it actually improve attachment security
- allows for us to make a casual developmental claim

Question 17

ainsworth (1978) evidence of parental sensitivity being a primary determinant of attachment security

Answer 17

strong associations (r=0.,78) between sensitive caregiving and later attachment security but failed to find as big associations in future studies by lucassen (2011) (r=0.22)

opposes the idea that parental sensitivity is the primary determinant in predicting security

Question 18

does temperament influence caregivers’ style of parenting?

Answer 18

• groh (2017) found the difference between secure and insecure in terms of temperament is small and significant
• When researchers removed the parent self rating studies they found the association between attachment security and temperament became non significant
• Found some kinds of attachment security are related to temperament (an interaction) but it is not an important element

Question 19

is parental sensitivity an environmental influence on attachment security?

Answer 19

similar strength of associations between adoptive and biological parents, so yes there an association between sesnitivity and attachment security, with no spurious from temperment OR genetics

Question 20

bakermans-kranenburg (2003) intervention meta-analysis on parental sesnitivity

Answer 20

interventions on parental sensitivity training improved caregiver sensitivity AND child attachment security (d=0.20), showing evidence of causality

• However it is a small effect, so it may not be a primary determinant of attachment security

Question 21

why are some caregivers more sensitive than others?

Answer 21

-others due to inter-generational transmission of attachment (Verhage, 2016), where caregiver’s attachment security correlated with more sensitive caregiving
- in turn resulted in secure attachment in child

• found even in adoptive families

Question 22

does sensitivity caregiving matter for attachment security?

Answer 22

yes, but this is not the primary environmental determinant

Question 23

sensitivity hypothesis criticisms

Answer 23

sensitivity may not be unidimensional, instead made up of different things

also consider other factors, such as mind-mindedness, also associated with attachment and sensitivity

bulk of research on WEIRD participants

Question 24

competence hypothesis

Answer 24

secure attachment leads to positive outcomes in a variety of domains

Question 25

bowlby (1947) competence hypothesis

Answer 25

claimed prolonged maternal separation during the first 5 years of life is “foremost among the causes of delinquent character development”

Question 26

ainsworth (1979) competence hypothesis

Answer 26

continued that secure attachments were the basis for forming positive future relationships

Question 27

internalising behaviour

Answer 27

-inner-directed behaviour, usually the result of negative emotions - e.g. look like anxiety, depression

Question 28

externalising behaviour

Answer 28

aggression or defiance directed outwardly to others or the environment - e.g. conduct disorder

Question 29

how can early attachments matter for later outcomes?

Answer 29

impact on later mental health impact on later relationships

Question 30

how can negative WM become risk factor for MH problems?

Answer 30

- by failing to view self as worthy of love - having negative expectations of others as being unreliable - ,and low self-confidence and regulation upon stress

Question 31

fearon (2010) and groh (2012) specificity hypothesis

Answer 31

as different types of insecurity are linked to different types of mental health issues, unlike Bowlby’s general risk factor

Question 32

examples within the specificity hypothesis

Answer 32

resistant children (those who maximise emotions) might predict internalising problems avoidant children (disinterested in being around others) might predict later externalising disorganised attachment is a general risk factor for either internalising or externalising

Question 33

fearon (2010) meta-analysis on attachment and externalising

Answer 33

insecure children had elevated levels of externalising problems (d=0.31) compared to secure children, but this does not have specific patterns of association associations between security and externalising were stronger in male children (d=0.18) disorganised children had strong associations for developing externalising problems (d=0.27)

Question 34

groh (2012) attachment and internalising

Answer 34

insecure children were at higher risk of developing these, but only from a small effect (d=0.15) – not the biggest determinant of MH disputes the specificity hypothesis, as avoidant children were at higher risk of internalising behaviours, and resistant children were no different from secure disorganised attachment unrelated to internalising

Question 35

how do fearon and groh support the competence hypothesis?

Answer 35

as insecure attachment increases risk of MH problems but correlation isnt strong

Question 36

SO, is attachment related to later mental health

Answer 36

insecurely attached is a risk factor for externalising problems, a small risk factor in internalising problems - Avoidants elevated risk for internalised NOT externalised problems - Resistant groups doesn't really predict risk in either category - Disorganised predictor for externalising

Question 37

how can social competence be measured?

Answer 37

- by observing their ability to build and maintain relationships - observing children’s interactions with peers, peer nominations to indicate their social network size, teacher reports, and reciprocated friendships

Question 38

groh (2014) social competence

Answer 38

- secure children had higher levels of social competence (d=0.39), showing evidence of correlations between attachment security and positive social outcomes - Tells us that the relationship a child had with their PCG sets them up for later social relationships beyond family

Question 39

unclear directions between social competence and attachment?

Answer 39

1. are sociable children more likely to become securely attached? 2. is secure attachment causing children to be more sociable?

Question 40

deneault (2023) prosociality

Answer 40

small associations (d=0.19) between secure children and higher likelihood of engaging in prosocial behaviour, which improves relationships and social competence

Question 41

confounding factors of meta-analyses on attachment (social competence)

Answer 41

temperament potential genetic factors No baseline measure of MH

Question 42

Specificity in meta analysis studies on social competence

Answer 42

It is a general risk factor, specific insecure categories don’t seem to have specific outcomes

Question 43

how did stams (2002) address potential confounds for social competence, and mental health ?

Answer 43

by studying predictors of social competence, internalising, and externalising behaviours in adoptive families

Question 44

(competance) stams (2002) results: temperament

Answer 44

temperament (negative affect and poor regulation) plays a moderate (r=0.22) role in predicting later social competence, internalising, and externalising

Question 45

(compoetence) stams (2002) results: sensitivity

Answer 45

sensitivity did not predict any of these when controlled for temperament

Question 46

( competence) stams (2002) results: attachment security

Answer 46

attachment security predicted these when controlling genetic confounds and temperament secure children showed high levels of social competence compared to insecure (r=0.17) shows competence hypothesis might be weakly supported but attachment security isnt a main determinant

Question 47

( competence) how did van ijzendoorn (2023) establish causal connections between caregiver sensitivity and mental health?

Answer 47

intervention improved parental sensitivity (r=0.18) and child attachment security (r=0.23), but there was no clear effect on externalising behaviours (r=0.07)

Question 48

explanation for finding no effect on externalising behaviour in intervention study (van ijzendoorn, 2023)

Answer 48

due to short follow-up period, as the effects of security take more time to emerge

Question 49

why is attachment security unlikely to be a necessary or sufficient cause of MH problems?

Answer 49

since multiple pathways exist - equifinality - multi-finality influence of attachment on MH can be moderated by other factors links may be non-linear and vary across different points in development

Question 50

equifinality

Answer 50

different risk factors leading to the same outcome

Question 51

multi-finality

Answer 51

a given risk factor gives rise to multiple different outcomes