Attachment theory – Two different lines of research

1. Attachment theory – Two different lines of research Anneli Frostell Div. of Cognition, Development and Disability Dept. of Behavioral Science and Learning Linköping university

2. Two lines of research The “original” approach • Developmental psychology • Parent – Child • Laboratory assessments/interview • Gold standard • Reliability issue (inter-rater 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

3. Theoretical origins John Bowlby(1969, 1973, 1980) • Innate attachment system 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) • Internal working models (IWM) Bretherton, I. (1992). Dev Psych, 28(5), 759-775

4. 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

5. 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

6. Behaviors and causes (SSP) Patterns of behavior in SSP 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. Patterns of care-giving at home 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

11. AAI classifications F Secure-AutonomousValue 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

12. 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)

13. Selection of newer methods • Doll-play (M-cast) • Story stems (secure base scripts)(Waters & Waters, Attach Hum Dev, 2006; 8(3): 185 – 197) • MacArthurPreschoolStrange Situation(Cassidy & Marvin, 1992)

14. 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 onsmall groups conducted byfew researchers

15. 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

16. 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%

17. Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998

18. 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)

19. Examples from different instruments

20. Two lines of research The “original” approach • Developmental psychology • Parent – Child • Laboratory assessments/interview • Gold standard • Reliability issue (inter-rater 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

21. 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, 5-51.

22. 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/

23. Recommended literature Broberg, A., Granqvist, P., Ivarsson, T. & RisholmMothander, P. (2006). Anknytningsteori – Betydelsen av nära relationer. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur Broberg, A., RisholmMothander, 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: NaturochKultur. Leach, P. (2000). De första fem åren: En ny version för en ny generation. Stockholm: Bonnier (1999) Hwang, P. (red.). (1999) Spädbarnetspsykologi. Stockholm: NaturochKultur