1. 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

2. 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)

3. 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)

4. Attachment Qsort Advantages
Works for broader age range ( 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)

5. 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
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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. So Why do Early Attachment Relationships Matter?

9. 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

10. 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)

11. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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, ).
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

17. 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

18. 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?

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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)

22. 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

23. 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?

24. 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

25. 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