W3 Lecture

Question 1

Q: Why are caregiver characteristics important to research?

Answer 1

1 in 5 are solo families, to challenge idea that mothers are primary caregiver, typical family forms don’t fit contemporary society

Question 2

Q: Does the gender of a parent affect attachment security?

Answer 2

No, studies (e.g., Pinquart, 2022) show no significant difference in attachment security between mothers (61%) and fathers (60%).

Question 3

Q: What does research say about LGBTQ parents and attachment security?

Answer 3

Studies (McConnachie et al., 2020) show that children of lesbian and gay parents develop secure attachments, similar to children of heterosexual parents.

Question 4

Q: Can children form secure attachments without genetic ties to their caregivers?

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Q: What were 3 key findings of Deneault, Carone, and Madigan (2024) regarding attachment research?

Answer 5

1. 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.

Question 6

Q: What did Feugé et al. (2020) find about gay fathers and their adopted children?

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

Q: What is the Sensitivity Hypothesis?

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Q: What did Fearon & Roisman (2018) claim about attachment security?

Answer 8

They argued that attachment security is largely determined by the caregiving environment, and that sensitivity to infants’ attachment cues is the primary environmental determinant.

Question 9

Q: What is caregiver sensitivity?

Answer 9

The ability of a caregiver to recognize, interpret, and respond appropriately to an infant’s cues.

Question 10

Q: What is a small, moderate, and large effect size?

Answer 10

1. Small: r = .10, d = .20, 2. Moderate: r = .30, d = .50, 3. Large: r = .50, d = .80 (Ellis, 2010)

Question 11

Q: What are three key criteria for establishing a causal relationship?

Answer 11

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).

Question 12

Q: What are the 3 types of research designs?

Answer 12

1. 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.

Question 13

Q: Longitudinal design 1 - Why does this design fail to establish causality between caregiver sensitivity and attachment security?

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Q: Longitudinal Design 2 (Auto-Regressive Model) - How does this model examine the stability of attachment security and its relationship with caregiver sensitivity?

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Q: Longitudinal Design 3 (Cross-Lagged Model) - How does this model improve causal inference compared to previous designs?

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Q: Longitudinal Design 4 (Interventions) - Why is this design the strongest for establishing causality?

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Q: What is the hypothesized influence of parental sensitivity on child attachment?

Answer 17

Parental sensitivity is hypothesized to influence a child’s attachment security.

Question 18

Q: What procedure is commonly used to study the relationship between parental sensitivity and attachment?

Answer 18

The Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) is commonly used.

Question 19

Q: What did Ainsworth et al. (1978) find regarding maternal sensitivity and infant attachment?

Answer 19

In a small sample (N = 23), they found a strong correlation (r = 0.78) between maternal sensitivity and infant attachment security.

Question 20

Q: What were the findings of De Wolff & Van IJzendoorn (1997) regarding maternal sensitivity?

Answer 20

Their large meta-analysis (N = 1666, 30 studies) found a moderate correlation (r = 0.22) between maternal sensitivity and infant attachment.

Question 21

Q: How did Lucassen et al. (2011) contribute to understanding paternal sensitivity?

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Q: How did early research compare to later studies regarding the strength of the link between parental sensitivity and attachment security?

Answer 22

Early research suggested a strong link, but larger studies and meta-analyses indicate that the relationship is weaker than originally thought.

Question 23

Q: Is parental sensitivity the primary determinant of attachment?

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

Q: What did the 2024 meta-analysis on parental sensitivity and attachment find?

Answer 24

Across 175 studies (20,000 children), a small but genuine correlation (r ≈ 0.2) was found between caregiver sensitivity and child attachment.

Question 25

Q: Was the effect of parental sensitivity on attachment consistent across different groups?

Answer 25

Yes, the effect was similar for mothers, fathers, and adoptive parents, suggesting it is not genetic but environmental.

Question 26

Q: Did the 2024 meta-analysis find a cross-cultural effect?

Answer 26

Yes, the correlation was consistent across seven geographical regions, indicating a universal association.

Question 27

Q: How might infant temperament act as a confounding variable in attachment research?

Answer 27

Temperament influences reactivity (response to stimuli) and self-regulation (mood stability), which can affect both caregiver sensitivity and attachment security.

Question 28

Q: What did Goldsmith et al. (1999) find about the heritability of temperament?

Answer 28

Temperament is approximately 50% heritable.

Question 29

Q: How does temperament influence attachment security?

Answer 29

It may impact the type of insecure attachment a child develops, especially when caregivers are insensitive.

Question 30

Q: What were the key findings of Groh et al. (2017) meta-analysis on temperament and attachment?

Answer 30

- Overall security & temperament: Small effect (d = 0.22). Insecure-resistant attachment: Moderate effect (d = 0.27). Other links were weak or non-significant.

Question 31

Q: What is the main conclusion about temperament’s role in attachment?

Answer 31

Temperament has a small but significant role, particularly in insecure-resistant attachment, but results vary based on how attachment is measured.

Question 32

Q: What model best explains the relationship between temperament and attachment?

Answer 32

A bi-directional model, where both child temperament and parental sensitivity influence attachment.

Question 33

Q: Does parental sensitivity influence child attachment security independently of genetics?

Answer 33

Yes, parental sensitivity affects attachment security regardless of genetic factors.

Question 34

Q: What evidence supports the environmental influence of parental sensitivity on attachment?

Answer 34

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.

Question 35

Q: What did Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2003) find about the causal influence of parental sensitivity on child attachment security?

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

Q: How does caregiver sensitivity relate to attachment security?

Answer 36

The correlation is modest (r = 0.22), and sensitivity accounts for about 5% of attachment security, though child temperament also plays a role.

Question 37

Q: What do studies suggest about the importance of caregiver sensitivity?

Answer 37

Studies like Groh et al. (2017) highlight that sensitivity is important but likely not the sole determinant of attachment security.

Question 38

Q: Are there other factors influencing attachment aside from sensitivity?

Answer 38

Yes, factors like parental attachment representation and mind-mindedness, as well as cultural influences, also affect attachment security.

Question 39

Q: What do studies by Van Ijzendoorn (1995) and Verhage et al. (2016) suggest about parental sensitivity?

Answer 39

Both studies show that adult attachment security correlates with parental sensitivity, and parental attachment representation mediates this relationship.

Question 40

Q: Is there a genetic influence on parental sensitivity?

Answer 40

No, studies on both bio and adoptive families show no genetic influence on sensitivity.

Question 41

Q: How significant is parental sensitivity in determining attachment security?

Answer 41

Parental sensitivity has a small effect on attachment security but is not the only influencing factor.

Question 42

Q: What types of studies support the sensitivity hypothesis?

Answer 42

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).

Question 43

Q: How do studies control for confounding variables like child temperament?

Answer 43

Studies such as Groh et al. (2017) use meta-analysis to control for confounding variables like child temperament in their examination of attachment.

Question 44

Q: Are there other parenting factors that influence attachment aside from sensitivity?

Answer 44

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).

Question 45

Q: Why is there criticism about focusing on the secure/insecure attachment distinction?

Answer 45

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.

Question 46

Q: How might the sensitivity hypothesis have cultural and contextual limitations?

Answer 46

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).

Question 47

Q: What is the Competence Hypothesis?

Answer 47

It suggests that secure attachment leads to positive developmental outcomes across various domains.

Question 48

Q: What do Bowlby (1947) and Ainsworth (1985) contribute to the Competence Hypothesis?

Answer 48

Bowlby links early maternal separation to negative outcomes, while Ainsworth argues secure infants develop confidence and competence, supporting exploration and learning.

Question 49

Q: How does attachment influence mental health?

Answer 49

Secure attachment promotes positive mental health, while insecure attachment is linked to internalizing (e.g., anxiety, depression) and externalizing problems (e.g., aggression).

Question 50

Q: How do different attachment types relate to mental health?

Answer 50

Insecure Resistant: Internalizing problems. Insecure Avoidant: Externalizing problems. Disorganized: Both internalizing and externalizing risks.

Question 51

Q: What does the meta-analysis by Fearon et al. (2010) reveal about attachment and externalizing problems?

Answer 51

Insecure attachment is a medium predictor of externalizing problems, with the effect being stronger in boys.

Question 52

Q: What does the meta-analysis by Groh et al. (2012) show about attachment and internalizing problems?

Answer 52

There is a small association between insecure attachment and internalizing problems, with avoidant attachment showing elevated internalizing due to emotion minimization.

Question 53

Q: What are the key findings on attachment and mental health risks?

Answer 53

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.

Question 54

Q: How does secure attachment benefit mental health?

Answer 54

It fosters positive working models, better self-regulation, and healthier perceptions of others and self-worth.

Question 55

Q: How does disorganized attachment affect mental health?

Answer 55

It increases the risk for both internalizing and externalizing problems.

Question 56

Q: What type of study is needed to test the Competence Hypothesis?

Answer 56

Longitudinal and interventional studies are needed to establish causality and rule out genetic effects, such as using adoptive families.

Question 57

Q: How does attachment influence social competence?

Answer 57

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.

Question 58

Q: What are prosocial behaviors linked to secure attachment?

Answer 58

Securely attached children show more empathy, cooperation, and helpfulness.

Question 59

Q: How strong is the correlation between security and prosocial behavior?

Answer 59

(Deneault et al., 2023) - The correlation is small (r = 0.19), suggesting it is a beneficial but not a strong predictor.

Question 60

Q: What confounding factors must be considered in attachment research?

Answer 60

Temperament, genetic factors, and the lack of true longitudinal studies are key factors to consider in research.

Question 61

Q: What did Stams et al. (2002) find in their adoption study?

Answer 61

Parental sensitivity did not predict outcomes in social competence, internalizing, or externalizing problems, although secure attachment had a small influence on social competence.

Question 62

Q: What did Van Ijzendoorn et al. (2023) find in their intervention meta-analysis?

Answer 62

Improving parental sensitivity led to improved attachment security, but no significant effect on mental health outcomes (.07) was observed.

Question 63

Q: Is attachment security a necessary or sufficient cause of mental health problems?

Answer 63

No, attachment security is neither a necessary nor sufficient cause of mental health problems.

Question 64

Q: What is equifinality in the context of mental health outcomes?

Answer 64

Equifinality refers to different risk factors leading to the same mental health outcome.

Question 65

Q: What does multifinality mean in terms of mental health?

Answer 65

Multifinality means one risk factor can lead to multiple mental health outcomes.

Question 66

Q: How can the effect of attachment security on mental health be influenced?

Answer 66

The effect can be influenced by moderating factors, such as other environmental or genetic factors.

Question 67

Q: Are the relationships between risk factors and mental health outcomes always linear?

Answer 67

No, the relationships may be nonlinear, with complex interactions and combinations of factors.

Question 68

Q: How might the attachment-mental health link change over time?

Answer 68

The link may change across developmental stages, and its effects may take longer to show, especially in longitudinal studies (De Klyen & Greenberg, 2016).