Transcript Attachment theory – Two different lines of research

Attachment theory
– Two different lines of research
Anneli Frostell
Div. of Cognition, Development and Disability
Dept. of Behavioral Science and Learning
Linköping university
Two lines of research
The “original” approach
• Developmental
psychology
• Parent – Child
• Laboratory
assessments/interview
• Gold standard
• Reliability issue (interrater reliability)
• Expensive
The Romantic Attachment
approach
• Social psychology
• Adult – Adult (partners)
• Self-rating
questionnaires
• Validity issue - measure
something else, but
related
• Inexpensive
Attachment patterns
Attachment styles
Theoretical origins
John Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980)
• Innate attachment system
Phases of the theory:
0-3
Non-discriminating social
months responsiveness
3-6 m
Discriminating social responsiveness
6-36 m
Active initiative in contact seeking
(Sensitive
and proximity maintaining
period)
> 36 m
Goal corrected partnership
Stages of separation:
Hours – 1 week Protest
Days
– weeks Despair
Weeks –
Detachment
• Internal working models (IWM)
Mary Ainsworth
• The secure base concept
• The Strange Situation (1978)
• Balance: attachment and
exploration systems
• Individual differences based
on the quality of care
Mary Main
• The Adult Attachment
Interview (1985)
• Frightened/Frightening (FR)
Bretherton, I. (1992). Dev Psych, 28(5), 759-775
The “original” approach
• Focus on babies and the impact of maternal
sensitivity on their emotional regulation and
socioemotional development.
• Consequences of own early attachment
related experiences on parental capabilities
• Methods:
The Strange Situation Procedure (SSP)
The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
Doll-play (M-cast)
Story stems
Strange Situation Procedure (SSP)
• 20 minute long laboratory procedure
• Elevating distress through two separations in order to
activate the attachment system
• Manual based coding – extended training, interreliability
Main scales:
Proximity-/ contact-seeking behavior
Contact-maintaining behavior
Resistant behavior
Avoidant behavior
Indices of Disorganization and Disorientation:
Sequential display of contradictory behavior patterns
Simultaneous display of contradictory behavior patterns
Undirected, Misdirected, Incomplete, and Interrupted movements
and expressions
Stereotypies, Asymmetrical movements, Mistimed movements, and
Anomalous postures
Freezing, Stilling, and Slowed movements and expressions
Direct indices of disorganization or disorientation
Behaviors and causes (SSP)
Patterns of behavior in SSP
Patterns of care-giving at home
A Avoidant: Poss. weak signs of
missing. Avoid/ignore the
parent upon reunion.
B Secure: Signs of missing. Active
proximity seeking upon reunion
and can use the parent as a
safe have to calm down.
C Ambivalent/Resistant: Angry,
clinging, avoidant, or passive
upon reunion. Focuses on the
parent but cannot calm down.
D Disorganized/Disoriented:
Disorganized or disoriented
behaviors when the parent is
present. No coherent strategy.
A Avoidant: Emotional distance,
lack of sensitivity to child
signals. Rejection. Predictable.
B Secure: Responsive. Emotional
closeness, sensitivity and
respect. Predictable.
C Ambivalent/Resistant:
Inconsistently available. Role
reversal. Blurred boundaries.
Unpredictable.
D Disorganized/Disoriented:
Frightened/frightening or
Hostile/helpless.
Possibly maltreatment.
Internal Working Models (IWM)
• Appropriate responses to positive and negative emotions
 awareness of emotions and controlling behaviors
• Well-coordinated regulatory patterns contributes to
self-regulation and a integrated sense of self
• 9-12 month: IWM develops to represent the emotions
and expectations of early dyadic patterns of interactions
(Bowlby 1969, 1973, 1980)
• IWM: Conceptual representation of self, others, and the
world, enables to predict and interpret others behaviors
and plan own response.
Based on Riggs, 2010
Continuity of attachment
• The early attachment pattern becomes an essential
component of the personality (Bowlby, 1988; Ainsworth,
1989)
• Stability of classification from infancy via 6 years to
adolescence and early adulthood (Grossmann, Grossmann &
Waters, 2005)
• Lawful discontinuity depending of disruptive life
events, e.g. death and maltreatment (Allen et al, 2004)
• Theoretically, partly explained by IWMs impact on
cognitive-affective processes (Cassidy, 2000):
- direct attention to specific stimuli
- create bias in memory encoding and retrieval
- guide expectations regarding availability of others
- influences attributions regarding ambiguous behaviors
Based on Riggs, 2010
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
• Captures current representations of early
attachment experiences (IWMs)
• Surprising the unconscious
• Transcribed verbatim and coded on 17 9-point
scales (Scales for: Inferred Experience, States of mind regarding
parent, Overall states of mind Extreme experiences and states of
mind)
• Manual based – extended training,
interreliability
AAI classifications
F
Secure-Autonomous
Value close relations, but is relatively independent &
objective concerning early close relationships.
Ds Dismissing
Lack of memory, normalizing & idealizing or
derogating the parent and early relations with him/her.
E Preoccupied
Passive or angry. Long irrelevant answers. Mentally
entangled or preoccupied with early close relations.
(U/d) Unresolved/Disorganized (F, Ds or E plus U/d)
Trauma/Loss. Marked mistakes in reasoning or discourse
Attachment is transmitted over
generations
Secure
Secure: F in the parent gives B in the baby
Insecure
Avoidant: Ds in the parent gives A in the baby
Ambivalent: E in the parent gives C in the baby
The AAI of the mother predicts
A, B or C in the child in 75% of the cases
Ref: van IJzendoorn (1995). Psychol Bull. May;117(3):387-403. (n=661)
Selection of newer methods
• Doll-play (M-cast)
• Story stems (secure base scripts)
(Waters & Waters, Attach Hum Dev, 2006; 8(3): 185 – 197)
• MacArthur Preschool Strange Situation
(Cassidy & Marvin, 1992)
Limitations of SSP and AAI
• Long training
• Time consuming data collection and
coding (plus AAI transcriptions)
• 10% of cases double coded for inter-rater
reliability
Expensive research on
small groups conducted by
few researchers
The social psychology approach
• Hazan and Shaver (1987) - the first to explore
Bowlby's ideas in the context of romantic
relationships.
• Self-rated paper and pen questionnaires
• Early: Choose one of three categories
• Now: Dimensions of avoidance and anxiety
Hazan & Shaver, 1987
A. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find
it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself
to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too
close, and often, others want me to be more intimate than I
feel comfortable being. 60%
B. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am
comfortable depending on them and having them depend
on me. I don't worry about being abandoned or about
someone getting too close to me. 20%
C. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would
like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or
won't want to stay with me. I want to get very close to my
partner, and this sometimes scares people away. 20%
Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998
RSQ – model of self/others
Self Model - patterns characterized by negative self
models minus patterns characterized by positive
self models
(fearful + preoccupied) MINUS (secure + dismissing)
higher scores will refer to more negative models of self.
Other Model - patterns characterized by positive
other models minus patterns characterized by
negative other models
(secure + preoccupied) MINUS (fearful + dismissing)
Examples from different instruments
Relationship Styles Questionnaire
(RSQ; Griffin & Batholomew, 1994)
Experiences of Close Relationships
(ECR-R; Fraley, Waller & Brennan,
2000)
I find it difficult to depend on other
people. (Avoidant)
I am comfortable without close
emotional relationships. (Avoidant)
I want to be completely
emotionally intimate with others.
(Anxiety)
People are never there when you
need them. (Anxiety)
I am nervous when partners get too
close to me. (Avoidant)
I prefer not to show a partner how I
feel deep down. (Avoidant)
I find that my partner(s) don't want
to get as close as I would like.
(Anxiety)
I often worry that my partner will
not want to stay with me. (Anxiety)
Two lines of research
The “original” approach
• Developmental
psychology
• Parent – Child
• Laboratory
assessments/interview
• Gold standard
• Reliability issue (interrater reliability)
• Expensive
The Romantic Attachment
approach
• Social psychology
• Adult – Adult (partners)
• Self-rating
questionnaires
• Validity issue - measure
something else, but
related
• Inexpensive
Attachment patterns
Attachment styles
Assignment to seminar
Seminar paper:
• Can we talk about one attachment theory? Compare the concepts of
attachment styles and attachment patterns. Do they measure the same
thing, related things or different things? Take a stand and argue for
your position.
Questions to discuss:
• Discuss methodological strengths and weaknesses of the attachment
theory.
• Try to be critical of the attachment theory. What are the weak points?
Articles to read:
Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., Doron, G. & Shaver, P. R. (2010). The Attachment Paradox: How Can So
Many of Us (the Insecure Ones) Have No Adaptive Advantages? Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 5:123-141.
Riggs, S. A. (2010). Childhood Emotional Abuse and the Attachment System Across the Life Cycle:
What Theory and Research Tell Us. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19: 1, 551.
References
Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and
Mary Ainsworth. Dev Psych, 28(5), 759-775
Fraley, R.C ., Waller, N.G. & Brennan, K.A. (2000). An item response theory
analysis of self-report measures of adult attachmnet. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350-365.
Kurdek, L.A. (2002) On being insecure about the assessment of attachment
styles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Vol. 19(6): 811–834
ECR-R: http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~rcfraley/attachment.htm
RSQ: http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/bartholomew/
Recommended literature
Broberg, A., Granqvist, P., Ivarsson, T. & Risholm Mothander, P.
(2006). Anknytningsteori – Betydelsen av nära relationer.
Stockholm: Natur och Kultur
Broberg, A., Risholm Mothander, P., Granqvist, P., & Ivarsson, T.
(2008). Anknytningsteori i praktiken. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur
Cassidy, J. & Shaver, P.R. (red.). (1999/2010) Handbook of
Attachment. New York: The Guilford Press.
Goldberg, S. (2000). Attachment and Development. London: Arnold
Bowlby, J. (1994). En Trygg Bas. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Leach, P. (2000). De första fem åren: En ny version för en ny
generation. Stockholm: Bonnier (1999)
Hwang, P. (red.). (1999) Spädbarnets psykologi. Stockholm: Natur
och Kultur