Outline Part II How do we measure attachment? Attachment Q-sort Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) Why do early relationships matter? Implications for Childhood and Adulthood Interventions

Attachment Qsort 90 Behaviors observed at home or other naturalistic settings Forced choice procedure – 9 piles of 10 cards. Least like – to most like the child Scoring: reflects how similar the child is to a hypothetical securely attached child Called Attachment Q Sort (AQS). Meta-analysis on 139 studies of 13,835 children. Observer AQS secruity score showed convergent validity with Strange Situation procedure (SSP) security Good predictive validity (r=.39) of sensitivity measures. Waters and Deane (1985) introducted new appraoch – caleld Q approach – as alternative measure to attachment secuirty in infants and toddlers. AQS Procedure: large number of cards (75,90, or 100). On each card a specific behavioral characteristics of children b/w ages 12 and 48 months is described. Cars include standard vocabulary to describe the be3havior of a child in the natural home setting, with special emphasis on secure-base behavior. After several hours of observation, observer ranks cards into several piles from “most descriptive of subject” to “least descriptive of subject.” Number of piles and number of cards placed in each pile are fixed. Researchers compare the cards most descriptive of child to prototypical secure child Prototype provided by several attachment experts in the field. AQS Security Score = correlation between Q sort of specific dhild and expert sort that describes prototypcial secure child. AQS Secruity Score = ranges from -1 to +1. ONLY measures degree of similarity to ideal security sort. (+1 = perfect match)

Attachment Qsort AQS Security Score = correlation b/w participant’s sort of his/her child and expert sort of prototypical secure child Called Attachment Q Sort (AQS). Meta-analysis on 139 studies of 13,835 children. Observer AQS secruity score showed convergent validity with Strange Situation procedure (SSP) secuirty Good predictive validity (r=.39) of sensitivity measures. Waters and Deane (1985) introducted new appraoch – called Q approach – as alternative measure to attachment secuirty in infants and toddlers. AQS Procedure: large number of cards (75,90, or 100). On each card a specific behavioral characteristics of children b/w ages 12 and 48 months is described. Cars include standard vocabulary to describe the be3havior of a child in the natural home setting, with special emphasis on secure-base behavior. After several hours of observation, observer ranks cards into several piles from “most descriptive of subject” to “least descriptive of subject.” Number of piles and number of cards placed in each pile are fixed. Researchers compare the cards most descriptive of child to prototypical secure child Prototype provided by several attachment experts in the field. AQS Security Score = correlation between Q sort of specific dhild and expert sort that describes prototypcial secure child. AQS Secruity Score = ranges from -1 to +1. ONLY measures degree of similarity to ideal security sort. (+1 = perfect match)

Attachment Qsort Advantages Works for broader age range (12-48 months) Conducted in home = ecological validity Does not induce stress on child Applicable to cultures in which (1) parent-infant separation is uncommon and/or (2) prototypical secure child looks different Called Attachment Q Sort (AQS). Meta-analysis on 139 studies of 13,835 children. Observer AQS secruity score showed convergent validity with Strange Situation procedure (SSP) secuirty Good predictive validity (r=.39) of sensitivity measures. Waters and Deane (1985) introducted new appraoch – called Q approach – as alternative measure to attachment secuirty in infants and toddlers. AQS Procedure: large number of cards (75,90, or 100). On each card a specific behavioral characteristics of children b/w ages 12 and 48 months is described. Cars include standard vocabulary to describe the be3havior of a child in the natural home setting, with special emphasis on secure-base behavior. After several hours of observation, observer ranks cards into several piles from “most descriptive of subject” to “least descriptive of subject.” Number of piles and number of cards placed in each pile are fixed. Researchers compare the cards most descriptive of child to prototypical secure child Prototype provided by several attachment experts in the field. AQS Security Score = correlation between Q sort of specific dhild and expert sort that describes prototypcial secure child. AQS Secruity Score = ranges from -1 to +1. ONLY measures degree of similarity to ideal security sort. (+1 = perfect match)

Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) Used with adolescents and adults Questioned about early child relationship with parents Example Questions: I’d like you to describe your relationships with your parents as a young child if you could start from as far back as you remember? Choose 5 adjectives that reflect your relationship with your mother from age 5 - 12 Classified as Secure Avoidant/dismissing Resistant/preoccupied Unresolved/disoriented Adult Attachment Models Based on Adults’ perceptions of their own childhood-parent relationships Like children, parents have internal working models of attachment relationship that guide their interactions with their children AAI: interview in which adults are asked to discuss their early childhood attachments and to evaluate them from their current perspectives. Using answers to questions, adults divided into 1 of 4 categories.

Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) Adult Attachment Style of Parents Description Autonomous/Secure Discuss past in consistent and coherent manner. Recall both positive and negative aspects Dismissing Cannot recall parental interactions or minimize impact of parents on their development Resistant/Preoccupied Intensely focused on parents. Give confused and angry accounts or attachment experiences. Unresolved/Disorganized Past traumatic experiences of loss or abuse. Descriptions may lack reasoning or sense. Dismissing: contradict selves, but unaware doing so. May describe mother in glowing therm, then later talk about how she got angry at kids whenever they hurt themselves Preoccupied: “I got so angry at my mother that I picked up the soup bowl and threw it at her” Caught up in their attachment memories, which prevents coherent description of these memories. Unresolved/Disorganized: may indicate he/she believes that a dead parent is still alive or that the parent died b/c of negative thorught the adult has about the parent. **New Slide

For the most part, the infants attachment style matched the parents’ attachment style But, we don’t know if parents behavior causes child’s attachment style (environment) or parents’ genes cause the child’s attachment style Secure Infants – most parents secure/autonomous Parents: 73% autonomous; 14% unresolved; 8% dismissing, 5% preoccupied Insecure-Avoidant Infant – most parents were dismissing (avoidant) Parents: 53% dismissing, 25% unresolved, 12% preoccupied, 10% autonomous Insecure Resistant Infants – most parents were resistant (anxious), then secure Parents: 36% preoccupied, 32% autonomous; 21% unresolved, 11% dismissing Disorganized Infants – most parents were disorganized Parents: 53% unresolved, 22% autonomous, 16% dismissing, 9% preoccupied. Parents’ attachment style predicts their sensitivity toward their own children and their’ children’s attachment to them Secure parents tend to have secure children Preoccupied and Dismissive parents tend to have insecure children (weaker for preoccupied) Mother adult attachment scores are positively correlated with their own children and with their mothers adult att. Scores Our attachment style with our parents + correlated to our attachment style with our own children.

So Why do Early Attachment Relationships Matter?

4 Adult Attachment Styles 4 Infant Attachment Styles Bowlby (1969) and Later relationships quality of child’s early attachment relationship (secure, insecure) influenced later relationship Internal Working Models: from first attachment relationship with caregiver, child develops a set of internalized expectations and beliefs about what other ppl are like (e.g., trustworthy, responsive, available, supportive) and internalized views of himself/herself as values and self-reliant or untrustworthy and incompetent Models influence child’s interpersonal expectations and behaviors and their relationships outcomes 4 Adult Attachment Styles

Internal Working Models (IWM) Cognitive representations of themselves and other people – that are used to interpret events and form expectations about close relationships Responsive caregiving should lead the child to conclude that people are dependable (positive IWM of other) and I am lovable (positive IWM of oneself)

Low Avoidance Low Anxiety High Anxiety High Avoidance SECURE “I am worried that I love my partner more than he/she loves me.” “I am worthy of love and support.” SECURE PREOCCUPIED Think of a celebrity who fits each attachment style. Low Anxiety High Anxiety “I don’t want to be too close to my partner. I value my independence.” “I want to be close to my partner, but I am afraid that he/she will reject me.” Adult Attachment Style Def’n: person’s characteristic beliefs, attitudes, and expectations about the self, other people and relationships Self= worthy of love and support vs. not worthy of love and support Other people = available and supportive vs. unavailable and rejecting Relationships = rewarding vs. punishing 2 Dimensions Anxiety Dimension = extent to which an individual worries or is concerned about being rejected or unloved by others Avoidance Dimension = degree to which an individual actively avoids or approaches intimacy, connection, and closeness with others Researchers agree there are 4 styles Secure: low attachment anxiety and avoidance believe they are worthy of love and support expect to receive love and support from others comfortable with closeness believe relationships are highly rewarding Preoccupied (anxious/ambivalent) high anxiety low avoidance preoccupied with intimacy issues = constantly worried that their parents don’t love them as much as they do Attached at the hip = want to merge / “close boundaries with their partners Unhealthy closeness scares partners away, confirming their suspicion that they will be rejected exaggerated need for closeness with others intensely anxious about being abandoned/rejected Dismissing-avoidant What will happen if I get to clsoe to smoeone? Actively resist intimacy in the first place When partners distressed = theyr are not supportive or responsive. Feel uncomfortable turning to others when they are distressed. opposite of preoccupied low anxiety high avoidance self-reliant rely on independence, not on formation of intimate relationships Fearful-avoidance high in anxiety and avoidance desire close, intimate bonds, but are fearful of being rejected protect self from disappointment by maintaining distance from others and avoiding intimacy Secure Individuals Compared to Avoidant and Preoccupied higher satisfaction, trust, intimacy, love, and commitment more likely to use positive and constructive problem-solving strategies for resolving conflict (eg. compromise, support, validation) Lower levels of conflict, interpersonal difficulty, and negative affect More effective communication styles and display more adaptive and flexible patterns of self-disclosure DISMISSING-AVOIDANT FEARFUL-AVOIDANT High Avoidance **New Slide

Low Avoidance Low Anxiety High Anxiety High Avoidance SECURE “I am worried that I love my partner more than he/she loves me.” “I am worthy of love and support.” SECURE PREOCCUPIED Match the infant attachment styles to the adult attachment styles! Low Anxiety High Anxiety “I don’t want to be too close to my partner. I value my independence.” “I want to be close to my partner, but I am afraid that he/she will reject me.” Adult Attachment Style Def’n: person’s characteristic beliefs, attitudes, and expectations about the self, other people and relationships Self= worthy of love and support vs. not worthy of love and support Other people = available and supportive vs. unavailable and rejecting Relationships = rewarding vs. punishing 2 Dimensions Anxiety Dimension = extent to which an individual worries or is concerned about being rejected or unloved by others Avoidance Dimension = degree to which an individual actively avoids or approaches intimacy, connection, and closeness with others Researchers agree there are 4 styles Secure: low attachment anxiety and avoidance believe they are worthy of love and support expect to receive love and support from others comfortable with closeness believe relationships are highly rewarding Preoccupied (anxious/ambivalent) high anxiety low avoidance preoccupied with intimacy issues = constantly worried that their parents don’t love them as much as they do Attached at the hip = want to merge / “close boundaries with their partners Unhealthy closeness scares partners away, confirming their suspicion that they will be rejected exaggerated need for closeness with others intensely anxious about being abandoned/rejected Dismissing-avoidant What will happen if I get to clsoe to smoeone? Actively resist intimacy in the first place When partners distressed = theyr are not supportive or responsive. Feel uncomfortable turning to others when they are distressed. opposite of preoccupied low anxiety high avoidance self-reliant rely on independence, not on formation of intimate relationships Fearful-avoidance high in anxiety and avoidance desire close, intimate bonds, but are fearful of being rejected protect self from disappointment by maintaining distance from others and avoiding intimacy Secure Individuals Compared to Avoidant and Preoccupied higher satisfaction, trust, intimacy, love, and commitment more likely to use positive and constructive problem-solving strategies for resolving conflict (eg. compromise, support, validation) Lower levels of conflict, interpersonal difficulty, and negative affect More effective communication styles and display more adaptive and flexible patterns of self-disclosure DISMISSING-AVOIDANT FEARFUL-AVOIDANT High Avoidance

Low Avoidance Low Anxiety High Anxiety High Avoidance SECURE “I am worried that I love my partner more than he/she loves me.” “I am worthy of love and support.” SECURE PREOCCUPIED SECURE! INSECURE-RESISTANT! Low Anxiety High Anxiety “I don’t want to be too close to my partner. I value my independence.” “I want to be close to my partner, but I am afraid that he/she will reject me.” Adult Attachment Style Def’n: person’s characteristic beliefs, attitudes, and expectations about the self, other people and relationships Self= worthy of love and support vs. not worthy of love and support Other people = available and supportive vs. unavailable and rejecting Relationships = rewarding vs. punishing 2 Dimensions Anxiety Dimension = extent to which an individual worries or is concerned about being rejected or unloved by others Avoidance Dimension = degree to which an individual actively avoids or approaches intimacy, connection, and closeness with others Researchers agree there are 4 styles Secure: low attachment anxiety and avoidance believe they are worthy of love and support expect to receive love and support from others comfortable with closeness believe relationships are highly rewarding Preoccupied (anxious/ambivalent) high anxiety low avoidance preoccupied with intimacy issues = constantly worried that their parents don’t love them as much as they do Attached at the hip = want to merge / “close boundaries with their partners Unhealthy closeness scares partners away, confirming their suspicion that they will be rejected exaggerated need for closeness with others intensely anxious about being abandoned/rejected Dismissing-avoidant What will happen if I get to clsoe to smoeone? Actively resist intimacy in the first place When partners distressed = theyr are not supportive or responsive. Feel uncomfortable turning to others when they are distressed. opposite of preoccupied low anxiety high avoidance self-reliant rely on independence, not on formation of intimate relationships Fearful-avoidance high in anxiety and avoidance desire close, intimate bonds, but are fearful of being rejected protect self from disappointment by maintaining distance from others and avoiding intimacy Secure Individuals Compared to Avoidant and Preoccupied higher satisfaction, trust, intimacy, love, and commitment more likely to use positive and constructive problem-solving strategies for resolving conflict (eg. compromise, support, validation) Lower levels of conflict, interpersonal difficulty, and negative affect More effective communication styles and display more adaptive and flexible patterns of self-disclosure DISMISSING-AVOIDANT FEARFUL-AVOIDANT DISORGANIZED! INSECURE-AVOIDANT! High Avoidance

Implications for Exploration and Cognitive Development Children with secure attachments… Exhibit more complex exploratory behavior Are more interested, persistent, and effective when solving a problem Display less frustration and less crying and whining Engage in more symbolic and pretend play Display more advanced cognitive abilities at age 7 Are more attentive in the classroom and had higher grades at ages 9, 12, and 15

There are Biases for Remembering Emotional Events based on IWM’s Due to differences in their internal working models: Securely attached children are biased to remember positive experiences Insecurely attached children to remember negative experiences. (Based on means in Table 1, p. 113, in J. Belsky et al., “Infant Attachment Security and Affective-Cognitive Information Processing at Age 3.” Psychological Science, 7, 1996, 111-114). Tested children at 3 years Classified attachment style based on style at 12 mos Showed children puppet show with good and bad events Secure children remembered more of the good events Insecure children remembered more of the bad events

Implications for Social Development Based on research by Sroufe, compared with insecurely attached children, securely attached children… Were rated by teachers as more emotionally positive, more empathic, and more socially competent at ages 4-5 Whined less, were less aggressive, and displayed fewer negative reactions when other children approached them Had more friends and were considered more popular by classmates Continued to be rated as more socially competent when they 8 and 12 years old Were more likely to develop close friendships with peers and form friendships with other securely attached children

What does this pattern of results suggest? Average levels of social responsiveness and emotional conflict shown by toddlers who were either securely or insecurely attached to their mothers and fathers. (Adapted from Main & Weston, 1981). Social Responsiveness: Emotional Conflict For kids only secure with mother, but insecure with father: insecure attachment to father does not affect emotional conflict, but does reduce social responsiveness. For kids only secure with father, but insecure with mother: social responsiveness drops and emotional conflict increases. Insecure with both parents: greatest increase in emotional conflict and greatest drop in social responsiveness. Take-home Point: 1) children with insecure attachments to both parents are affected the most. 2) More negative consequences if securely attached to father, but not the mother What does this pattern of results suggest?

Implications for Adulthood Rejection Sensitivity: Tendency to anxiously anticipate, readily perceive, and emotionally and behaviorally overreact to rejection from significant others Self-protective response to early parental rejection Rejection Sensitivity tendency to anxiously anticipate, readily perceive, and emotionally and behaviorally overreact to rejction from significant others develops as a self-protective response to early parental rejection Assessed by asking individuals to imagine being in various situations that involve making requests or asking for assistance from acquaintances, romantic partners, or family members For each situation, Ps asked whether they would be concerned or anxious about the response to their request from persons involved and whether they would expect others to honor or reject the request. High rejection sensitivity = express anxiety and concern about outcome of their request coupled with expectation of rejection Low rejection sensitivity = less anxiety and concern and express a calm expectation of assistance

Consequences of High Rejection Sensitivity Primed to perceive rejection in behavior of others Less satisfied with RR and family relationships More likely to be in unstable partnerships If relationship contains 1 rejection sensitive partner, more likely to lead to break-up 1 year later Magnifies partner’s dissatisfaction and lack of commitment Positive correlation btwn. rejection sensitivity and self-silencing (self-silencing leads to depression) Ppl high in rejection sensitivity primed to perceive rejection in behavior of others less satisfied with RR and family relationships more likely to be in unstable partnerships If a relationship contains 1 rejection sensitive partner, more likely to lead to break-up a year later magnify partner’s dissatisfaction and lack of commitment Positive correlation btwn rejection sensitivity and self-silencing (inhibiting self-expression in intimate relationships); self-silencing then led to increase in depressive symptoms Self-silencing behaviors = not voicing feelings if would cause disagreement, not expressing anger to partners, and not expressiong opinions or wishes that conflicted with partners’ display hostile, jealous, emotionally unsupportive, and negative interpersonal behaviors Men high in rejection-sensitivity = more likely to display jealousy and suspicion and seek to control their partner’s contact with other ppl Women high in rejection sensitivity = more likely to blame partners’ unjustly **Rejec. Sensitivity may undermine relationships

Implications for Adulthood Coherent accounts of childhood experiences (secure) relative to insecure: Engage in higher quality interactions with romantic partners concurrently and 1 year later Describe relationships as more positive Insecurity associated with greater electrodermal reactivity during conflict resolution discussions (suggests preparation of Sympathetic nervous system to respond to a threat or challenge)

Implications for Adulthood In RR, Secure Adults show Higher satisfaction, trust, intimacy, love, and commitment with romantic partner Lower levels of conflict, interpersonal difficulty, negative affect More effective communication and problem-solving strategies

Stability of Attachment 72% of children who were classified as secure in infancy were secure 20 years later More likely to change from insecure to secure In one study, 42% of children who were insecure at 1 year were secure at 4 years. Change/stability tends to depend on stability of parenting and environment So, can we even change attachment style?

Attachment Style Interventions Synchrony Circle of Security Steps Towards Effective Enjoyable Parenting™ (STEEP) and Seeing is Believing Training Meta-analysis on interventions (Bakermans- Kranenburg et al., 2003) 85 studies testing several types of interventions Increasing parental sensitivity changes infant attachment style Synchrony – establish between gestation and infancy ABSTRACT The Circle of Security intervention protocol is a 20-week, group-based, parent education and psychotherapy intervention designed to shift patterns of attachment–caregiving interactions in high-risk caregiver–child dyads to a more appropriate developmental pathway. All phases of the protocol, including the pre- and postintervention assessments, and the intervention itself, are based on attachment theory and procedures, current research on early relationships, and object relations theory. Using edited videotapes of their interactions with their children, caregivers are encouraged: 1 to increase their sensitivity and appropriate responsiveness to the child’s signals relevant to its moving away from to explore, and its moving back for comfort and soothing; 2 to increase their ability to reect on their own and the child’s behavior, thoughts and feelings regarding their attachment–caregiving interactions; and 3 to reect on experiences in their own histories that affect their current caregiving patterns. There is a sequence of ve overarching therapeutic goals used for all parents: 1 to create a holding environment or secure base from which the parents can explore their parenting; 2 to provide the parents with a user-friendly map of attachment theory that we call the Circle of Security; 3 to help the parents develop their observational skills, especially as these apply to reading and responding to their children’s (often subtle and misleading) cues; 4 to develop a process of reective dialogue in the group – a skill that the parent can then use internally; this process is viewed as the central dynamic for change; 5 to supporting the parents’ empathic shift from defensive process to empathy for their children. The leader chooses four vignettes of each dyad to present during that session: 1 Vignette 1 shows the child distressed and wanting the parent. This clip is used to clarify how important the parent is to the child and to activate and enhance the parent’s caregiving system. This clip can also help to clarify and/or redene the parent’s internal representation of the child. 2 Vignette 2 highlights the parent being competent in her or his under-used capacity. 3 Vignette 3 shows the parent struggling with her or his under-used capacity. This creates a segue to the phase 2 review, which will take place seven weeks later. 4 Vignette 4 presents a moment to celebrate the parent’s relationship with the child. The parent needs to know that the group and group leader are supportive, thus consolidating a secure base from which the parent can continue to explore her or his own patterns of caregiving. Meta-analysis: Looked at following types of intervention: increasing parental sensitivity, changes parents’ internal working models, providing social support to parents Studies with approx 6 sessions were best, or combination of approaches As an example of an intervention aimed at enhancing parental sensitivity, Black and Teti (1997) provided adolescent mothers with a videotape to help them enhance their sensitivity during mealtime. An intervention aimed at affecting parents’ mental representation was presented in Cicchetti, Toth, and Rogosch’s (1999) study with depressed mothers. The intervention aimed at reconstructing mothers’ representation of self in relation to their own parents to enable them to reconstruct new representations of themselves in relation to their child. An intervention focused on support can be found in one of Barnett, Blignault, Holmes, Payne, and Parker’s (1987) intervention programs, in which experienced mothers provided support and practical help to highly anxious mothers. Barnett et al.’s second intervention program combined the provision of social support with efforts to enhance maternal sensitivity and was thus coded in the category “sensitivity and support.” Intervention studies that combined strategies directed at maternal sensitivity, representation, and support were conducted by, for example, Egeland and Erickson (1993, with the STEEP project; i.e., steps toward effective, enjoyable parenting) a

Summary Infant attachment styles are Correlated with parent attachment styles Associated with developmental outcomes Stable into adulthood Several measures and interventions exist Parental sensitivity is currently the best intervention