Advanced Developmental Psychology PSY 620 P Introduction

Advanced Developmental Psychology PSY 620 P

Introduction to Attachment Christine Sinicrope Messinger 2

Indiscriminate Social Responsiveness (0 to 8 weeks) n Signals that function to establish or maintain proximity of caregiver Based on ethological theories of emotional

Attachment’s Function/Goal: Keeping Caregivers Close Messinger 6

Environment of evolutionary adaptiveness Protection from predators and. . . conspecifics Messinger 7

Attachment system Inherent motivation n Organization of different behaviors n – Doesn’t matter how you get to caregiver With single function n In a goal-corrected manner n n Attachment as an organizational construct Messinger 8

Multiple attachments Infants form attachments to many caregivers n A hierarchy is assumed n – n In which infant turns first to primary caregiver Role of fathers Messinger 9

Attachment makes social contact a psychological reality n You carry feelings of being with other inside you Messinger 10

Attachment motivates behaviors through feelings n n Forming attachment Maintaining attachment Threat of loss Actual loss n n Messinger Falling in love Loving someone (joy) Anxiety Sorrow/mourning 11

What forms the basis for attachment relationships? (cont) n Harlow’s studies and the rejection of “drive reduction” explanations – Spitz (1946) noticed that infants in orphanages (who were adequately nourished but had no loving attention) did very poorly – Harlow’s surrogate mother studies examined relative influence of feeding vs. contact/comfort on attachment

Intellectual History n Old dominant theory: – Affection/attachment to mother originate because mother is the source of food Behaviorist: Contact becomes conditioned reinforcer because it is paired with food, an unconditioned reinforcer n Learning theory: Primary drive toward food (oral) becomes secondary drive toward contact n n Harlow demonstrates this is incorrect – Harlow movie: https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=hs. A 5 Sec 6 d. AI Messinger 13

Harlow’s Surrogate Mother Studies (cont) From Blum

Time is spent on cloth mothers n Both wire and cloth fed spend most of their time on cloth surrogate mother – Messinger Regardless of which “mother” fed you 18

Secure Base n Secure attachment to surrogate allows for exploration of feared situation Messinger 19

Key Attachment Concepts examined by Harlow Contact with attachment figure n Retreat to attachment figure when afraid n Become less afraid n Use attachment figure as secure base from which to explore n Messinger 22

Attachment disorders: Romanian adoptees http: //www. chrisgibbs. com/pages/romania. html Messinger 25

Exposure to institutional rearing disinhibited attachment disturbance < 18 months: 16% (13/84) 24 -42 months: 33% (15/45) n Stable & little decrease 2 -years. Disturbance (from interview) means – – – Lack of differentiation among adults; Clear indication that child would readily go off with a stranger; Lack of checking back w parent in anxiety-provoking situations. • Rutter, M. and T. G. O'Connor (2004). "Are There Biological Programming Effects for Psychological Development? Findings From a Study of Romanian Adoptees. " Developmental Psychology 40(1): 81 -94 Messinger 26

Difference n Presence of attachment is usually a biological given – n almost all infants attached Security of attachment is an individual difference – 2/3 of infants securely attached, 1/3 anxiously attached (some avoidant, some resistant) Messinger 32

Measuring attachment security A construct (secure attachment) Is different than its measurement or operationalization n Attachment security can be measured with a Q-sort (an intricate rating system) n Prototypically measured with the Strange Situation (12 – 36 months at least) n 33

AQS ITEM NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION n n n Child keeps track of mother's location around the house. 74***. 35**36. Child clearly shows a pattern of using mother as secure base. 70***. 50***62. When child is in a happy mood, he/she likely to stay that way. 65***. 2083. When child is bored, he/she goes to mother for something to do. 63***. 13 9. Child is lighthearted and playful most of the time. 62***. 25*87. 35

Overall strategy n A – Avoidant – n B – Secure – n Seek and be comforted by caregiver C – Resistant – n Avoid caregiver Seek caregiving without surcease D – Disorganized – Lack a coherent strategy 36

Measuring Attachment n Ainsworth’s (1978) Strange Situation – Seven episodes increasing amount of stress (e. g. , unfamiliar environment, unfamiliar adult, brief separation from parent) – How are attachment behaviors are organized around parent – Attachment classification based primarily on reunion behaviors See example at: http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=QTsew. Nr. HUHU (van Ijzendoorn) Attachment examples ppt https: //nyu. databrary. org/volume/108/slot/10325/-? asset=28995

Attachment system Stress activates the attachment system & reveals the child’s strategy n Security is an equilibrium n Avoidance is deactivation/shutting down n Resistance is over-activation/acting up n 38

Attachment Classifications n Secure Attachment (Type B; 65% in NA) – – n Ambivalent/Insecure-Resistant (Type C, 15% in NA) – – n Insecure/Avoidant (Type A, 20% in NA) – – n Disorganized (Type D, very rare) – –

Measuring attachment security A construct (secure attachment) Is different than its measurement or operationalization n Attachment security can be measured with a Q-sort (an intricate rating system) n Prototypically measured with the Strange Situation (12 – 36 months at least) n 40

Measuring Attachment n Ainsworth’s (1978) Strange Situation – Seven episodes increasing amount of stress (e. g. , unfamiliar environment, unfamiliar adult, brief separation from parent) – Of interest is how attachment behaviors are organized around parent – Attachment classification based primarily on reunion behaviors See example at: http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=QTsew. Nr. HUHU (van Ijzendoorn)

Attachment Classifications n Secure Attachment (Type B; 65% in NA) – – n Ambivalent/Insecure-Resistant (Type C, 15% in NA) – – n Insecure/Avoidant (Type A, 20% in NA) – – n Disorganized (Type D, very rare) – –

Attachment system Stress activates the attachment system & reveals the child’s strategy n Security is an equilibrium n Avoidance is deactivation/shutting down n Resistance is over-activation/acting up n 43

Cross-cultural assessment n n 2, 000 Ainsworth strange situation classifications obtained in 8 different countries. Intracultural variation was nearly 1. 5 times the cross-cultural variation. – n Some samples from one country resembled those in other countries more than they did each other. Cross-cultural differences – – Avoidant classifications emerge relatively more prevalent in Western European countries resistant classifications relatively more frequent in Israel and Japan. 44

Strange Situation protocol 8 episodes, 3 min. each 1: mother given instructions outside room n 2: mother & child in room n 3: stranger enters n 4: 1 st separation (stranger present) n 5: 1 st reunion n 6: 2 nd separation (baby alone) n 7: stranger reunion n 8: 2 nd reunion n 45

Reunion coding scales Proximity seeking n Contact maintenance n Avoidance n Resistance n n 1(low) -7 (high) n Disorganization – 1 to 9 46

Overall strategy n A – Avoidant – n B – Secure – n Seek and be comforted by caregiver C – Resistant – n Avoid caregiver Seek caregiving without surcease D – Disorganized – Lack a coherent strategy 47

n Videos 48

Proximity seeking behaviors Immediate (vs. Delayed) approach to mom n Purposeful and effective approach n Going all the way to mother and making contact n Reaching for pick up n 50

Contact Maintenance Behaviors Resisting release, clambering up after being put down n Protesting release by crying n Clinging on attempted release n Remaining in contact after being put down i. E. Holding on to mother’s knee n 52

Avoidance Behaviors Delay in responding to mom’s entrance n Ignoring mom’s entrance; No greeting given n Busying self with toys at point of reunion n Gaze aversion when mom bids n Trying to go past mom out the door n Orienting body away from mom n 55

Resistance Behaviors Angry mood, pouting, petulance, distress, cranky fussing, temper tantrum n Squirming when held n Rejection of toys when mom offers n Not easily calmed n Crying after being calmed n Crying in response to increased proximity n 57

Disorganization n Inexplicable behavior – No goal/strategy Behavior suggests infant fears caregiver n Disorganized behavior should occur with caregiver and is given more weight if it occurs early in reunion n 58

Coding disorganization n “Behavior indicative of conflict, fear, and confusion in relation to their attachment figure. . . Sequential or simultaneous display of contradictory behavior patterns; undirected, misdirected, incomplete, and interrupted movements and expressions; stereotypes, asymmetrical movements, mistimed movements, and anomalous postures; freezing, stilling, and slowed movements and expressions; and direct indexes of apprehension, disorganization, or disorientation. ” (Belsky et al. , 1996) 59

Disorganized behavior Sequential/simultaneous displays of contradictory behaviors n Incomplete and stereotypic movements n Freezing/stilling/slowing n Indices of apprehension n A 9 -point Disorganization scale where scores of 5+ indicate disorganization. n 60

Physiology n Disorganized infant have higher stress reactions (salivary cortisol) than other infants – – – in the Strange Situation– two studies Reasonably stable categorization R=. 34 over x 25 months – n Meta-analysis: Van Ijzendoorn, Schuengel, & Bakermans-Kranenburg (1999) Higher heart rate for avoidant infants 61

Mitsven, 2017 Attention to Faces Expressing Negative Emotion at 7 months Predicts Attachment Security at 14 months Peltola, Forssman, Puura, van Ijzendoorn, & Leppänen (2015) 63

Mitsven, 2017 Background Attachment experiences early in life can have long-lasting effects on later socioemotional development. Studies using the Still-Face Paradigm have provided evidence that infants with lower negative affect during the still-face (i. e. , neutral expression) were more securely attached at 1 year of age. Building upon studies using behavioral responses to facial expressions as predictors of later attachment, the current study examined whether infants’ attentional biases to facial expressions at 7 months predicted attachment quality at 14 months. 64

Mitsven, 2017 Background Aims: To investigate whether infants’ attention to negative facial expressions predicts later attachment security Are there differences in attention to facial expressions as a result of attachment style (i. e. , secure vs. insecure)? Do differences in maternal sensitivity predict attentional biases to facial expressions? 65

Mitsven, 2017 Method Participants 73 infants From urban, middle class, Caucasian families Measures Eye-tracking Overlap Paradigm Completed at 7 months Maternal Sensitivity Mother-infant free-play interaction at home Completed at 7 months Infant-Mother Attachment Strange Situation Paradigm Completed at 14 months 66

Mitsven, 2017 Eye-tracking: Overlap Paradigm Measures of interest: Proportion of missing attention shifts Attentional bias scores 67

Mitsven, 2017 Results 68

Mitsven, 2017 Results 69

Mitsven, 2017 Conclusions Early attentional biases to negative facial expressions are predictive of later attachment security. Attentional biases toward threat-related stimuli lead to positive developmental outcomes. Infants’ sensitivity to threat related cues is a useful marker of attachment status that can be assessed prior to traditional assessments of attachment. 70

Mitsven, 2017 Discussion Questions What is the practical significance of these findings? Knowing that a diminished attention bias to fear faces is associated with insecure attachment, is there something that can be done to intervene? What about the generalizability of these results? How do you think the results might change using a more diverse sample/sample from a more severe caregiving environment? 71