Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PIP - Adult attachment styles - Y2 - Coggle Diagram
PIP - Adult attachment styles - Y2
Structure and origin of individual differences
Romantic partnerships are attachment bonds
It is evolutionarily adaptive to be attached to a mate - beneficial for offspring
Four main attachment functions / features -
-> Separation anxiety, secure base, proximity maintenance, safe haven
Adult-pair bond -> attachment, caregiving and sexuality
Internal working models -> Bowlby (1969), Main, Kaplan and Cassidy (1985), and Waters et al, 2000
Mental representations / schemas of relationships
-> Self - I am worthy of love and affection
-> Other - will my caregiver be available and reliable
They guide expectations and behaviour, and also give strategies with how to socalise - it shapes everything about your experience of relationships in how you guide your own behaviour and assess others
Nature of experiences with primary caregivers -> answers to these questions (IWM) -> attachment style
Schemas persist over time and applied to new people (open to revision in light of significant experiences) -> stability
-> Self-fulfilling prophecy of interactions - as the IWM is a schema, we have similar reactions to consistent situations and this can lead to issues with interactions
-> However, it is open to revision, as this is more adaptive
Individual differences in adult attachment - Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) model, Crawford et al (2007) -
Positive-other model (low avoidance)
Negative-other model (high avoidance)
-> Leads to rejecting / neglectful care
-> No genetic component
-> Emotion suppression, self-reliance, defensive discomfort with intimacy
Negative self-model (high anxiety)
-> Inconsistent / overprotective care
-> 40% heritable
-> Clingy, fear abandonment, difficulty regulating emotions, they do not learn the strategies and they are unsure on how to cope on their own
Positive self-model (low anxiety)
Combinations for attachment styles -
High anxiety and high avoidance - fearful avoidant
Low anxiety and high avoidance - dismissing avoidant
High anxiety and low avoidance - preoccupoed
Low anxiety and low avoidance - secure
Shaver and Mikulincer's (2002) model of attachment system functioning in adulthood:
Three modules (1, 2 and 3)
1 - Signs of threat -> Yes -> activation of the attachment system -> seeking proximity to externalised or internalised attachment system
-> 2 - Is the attachment figure available, attentive, responsive etc? -> Yes -> Felt security, relief, positive affect -> broaden and build cycle of attachment security -> continue with activities
--> This is secure attachment - primary strategy
If no -> attachment insecurity (compounding of distress)
-> 3 - Is proximity seeking a viable option -> Yes -> Hyperactivating strategies (anxious attachment) -> hypervigilance regarding threat and attachment related cues
No - deactivating strategies -> distancing of threat and attachment related cues (avoidant attachment)
1 - Signs of threat -> No -> continue with ongoing activities
Following avoidant attachment, this negates threats and attachment cues in modules 1 and 2
Following anxious attachment, this reinforces threats and attachment cues in modules 1 and 2
These are secondary strategies for threat - insecure types start at the top of the model but can use the secure strategies, but they are more likely to rely on secondary strategies
Limitation of the model - does not represent the fearful avoidant explicitly, but it is suggested they are inconsistent in which strategy they use, unlike dismissive avoidants and preoccupied types
Measuring individual differences in adult attachment - Brennan, Clark and Shaver (1998)
Experience of close relationships scale -
-> 'I worry other people won't care about me as much as I care about them'
-> 'I am nervous when people get too close to me'
Mikulincer, Gilath and Shaver, 2002 - lexical decision task -
Stimuli - non-word, attachment figure or another person they know
Threat - faster RTs to attachment figure names (not others)
Attachment anxiety -> faster RTs to attachment figure names in generl (hyperactivation)
Attachment avoidance -> slower RTs after separation threat deactivation (high avoidance leads to less of a reaction after threat of separation goes)
Hierarchy of attachment models (Collins and Read, 1994):
Global / default model -> parents and peers
-> Peers -> friends and romantic partners
Leads to relationship specific models
Activation of the attachment system in adulthood - threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of attachment figures (Mikulincer, 2002):
Three studies on effects of subliminal threat on activation of representations of attachment figures
-> Stroop and lexical decision task of threat and neutral primes, compared with accessibility of representations of close persons, known close persons or unknown persons
-> Threat primes increased accessibility - specific to attachment figures and replicated
-> Attachment anxiety heightened accessibility of representations even in neutral contexts
-> Avoidance inhibited this activation when threat prime was ‘separation’ - suggests protection of self and deactivation of attachment in loss situations
-> Effects were not explained by trait anxiety
Relations between attachment and affect regulation, personality, relationships, and mental health
Attachment and personality: de Vries (2013), Gallo, Smith and Ruiz (2003):
Fearful avoidant / high anxiety -> higher neuroticism
Preoccupied / low avoidance -> higher agreeableness
Secure attachment -> higher extraversion, conscientiousness, moderately higher honesty/humility
Dismissing avoidant -> higher openness (for women) - weak finding
Attachment and affect regulation: Hepper and Carnelley, 2012:
Security - inner resource for regulating affect, seek support when needed, comfortable expressing emotions
Avoidance (deactivation) -
-> Suppress emotional experience and expression (Sadikaj et al, 2011)
-> Cope using interpersonal distance and self-reliance
-> Self-esteem may depend on being independent
Anxiety (hyperactivation) -
-> Experience and express emotions intensely (Sadikaj et al, 2011)
-> Cope using interpersonal closeness and dependence
-> Self-esteem unstable, may depend on approval/affection from others
Sadikaj, Moskowitz and Zuroff (2011):
Aim - assess emotional responses to everyday social interactions; reduced recall bias as they reported everyday
Participants - 113 working adults in US, mean age of 40.88
Part 1 - attachment questionnaire (anxiety and avoidance scores)
Part 2 - reported every social interaction (>5 min for 20 days - 120 completed as a mean)
-> How others behaved (agency + communion)
-> Positive and negative affect
Main effect of anxiety -> the better the partner’s behaviour, the less negative affect experienced (more steep drop for high anxiety group)
Main effect of avoidance -> the better partner behaviour, less negative affect - however, more of a drop in low avoidance group - high avoidance leads to less negative affect for negative behaviour, but also less positive affect; protect against negative affect but gain less positive affect, whereas low avoidants had more exposure to both
No main effect of attachment on positive affect
Stronger in interactions with romantic partners and was significant when Big Five traits were controlled for
Patterns replicate with self-esteem as DV (Hepper and Carnelley, 2012)
Attachment and mental health - Mikulincer and Shaver, 2018:
Underlying insecurity is risk factor, but some specific patterns -
-> Avoidance (deactivation)
--> Eating disorders (restrictive)
--> Depression (over-reliance on self)
-> Anxiety (hyperactivation)
--> Anxiety disorders
--> Eating disorders (bingeing)
--> Depression (over-reliance on others)
--> Borderline personality disorder
-> Evidence cross-sectional and longitudinal, clinical and non-clinical
Attachment and romantic relationships:
People high on avoidance attachment would - Lee (1976); Hepper and Carnelley (2012), Simpson et al (1992) -
-> Less likely to get involved
-> Ludus love style
-> Self-disclose less and provide less sensitive support
-> Little emotional expression and low support-seeking
-> Feel less satisfied (and their partners too)
-> Interpret behaviour negatively
-> Less committed and trusting
-> Silent treatment / passive aggressive
Simpson, Rholes and Nelligan (1992):
Aim - observe real support-seeking behaviour in couples
Participants - 83 dating couples
Phase 1 - attachment questionnaire
Phase 2 - female participant taken to waiting room, joined by partner and left alone for 5 minutes - were given instructions about being exposed to anxiety inducing situations
Participants feelings and behaviours following anxiety scenarios rated by coders
-> Attachment anxiety was unrelated to support-seeking
-> As observed fear increased, secure women showed more support-seeking but more avoidant women showed less
-> 16 women who did not mention the stressful situation were more avoidant
Higher levels of attachment anxiety -
Commit quickly to a new relationship and have rebound relationships
Provide compulsive caregiving (regardless of partner’s needs)
Interpret partner’s behaviour negatively
More jealousy - Marshall et al, 2013; more likely to stalk partner’s Facebook comments
More conflict, caused by chronic need for intimacy and excessive reassurance-seeking - both partners are less satisfied and are more likely to break up, get back together and have rebound relationships
Linked to mania love style (Lee, 1976)
Attachment and sexual behaviour -
Insecure people are more likely to report multiple partners and short-term encounters (Kim and Miller, 2020)
Motives for having sex differ (Gewirtz-Meydan and Finzi-Dottan, 2018)
-> Anxiety -> more for intimacy, reassurance and keep partner interested
--> Leads to agreeing to unwanted sex and risky/unprotected sex
-> Avoidance -> less intimacy, more for pure physical pleasure, manipulation, status, obligation and to avoid conflict
--> Leads to purely physical encounters, less sexual satisfaction in close relationships
--> Low K-factor (Kruger, 2017)
Attachment insecurity and evolution
Attachment theory - insecure strategies develop to maximise protection and survival in infancy (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007)
Social defence theory - adaptive for groups to include insecure as well as secure members to deal with threat (Ein-Dor et al, 2010)
-> Anxiety -> sentinel behaviour - faster threat detection
-> Avoidance -> rapid fight or flight - faster action
-> Simulation of building on fire
Evaluation of the extent to which individual differences in attachment are fixed or changeable
Changing attachment styles -
Anxiety levels decrease with age (Klohnen and John, 1994)
Avoidance levels are lower when in a long-term relationship (any causality?)
Security levels decrease after a break-up (Kirkpatrick and Hazan, 1994) but increase across the transition to motherhood (Simpson et al, 2003)
Relationship with secure partner or therapist (Bowlby, 1988)
Security can be primed subliminally, activating secure base representations - reduces state insecurity, influences information processing (Mikulincer et al, 2001; Carnelley and Rowe, 2007)
Summary and considerations
How well does attachment theory explain behaviour in romantic relationships?
Communication, commitment, trust, patterns of conflict, power balances, sexual activity and satisfaction
What do attachment styles add to prediction of behaviour over and above Big 5/6 traits?
More likely to explain behaviour differences between different relationships and communication styles
Is there anything that would not relate to attachment avoidance or anxiety?
How well does evolutionary theory explain individual differences in attachment in adults?
Explains the source of the differences but is likely reductionist - attachment being different can cause conflict in social groups
Is there a best attachment style to have?
Secure - but could depend on partner
Core claims of attachment theory apply to (some elements of) adult romantic and peer relationships
Individual differences in attachment anxiety and avoidance relate to differences in personality and adjustment
Attachment insecurity impacts romantic relationships and sex in theory-consistent ways but may have adaptive features
Attachment patterns differ across relationships and time and can be changed via new relationships, therapy or priming
Attachment in relationships
Attachment behaviours are developed to help keep the infant close to the mother for protection to form the attachment bond - the parental response to the child’s attachment behaviour leads to later IWM of attachment
Ainsworth attachment styles - secure attachments have moderate separation and stranger anxiety, but strong reunion and secure base behaviour - this is the most adaptive and healthy of the attachment styles
Anxious resistant children have severe separation and stranger anxiety, but have difficulty with reunion as they want to punish the parent for leaving but also seek comfort
Anxious avoidant children have little stranger or separation anxiety, and do not show secure-base behaviour - when reunited, they show little emotion
Ainsworth suggested that these styles correlated with interactions between parent infant in the home during the first years of life
Secure children had responsive parents
Insecure children had inconsistent (resistant) parenting, or absent (avoidant) parenting
Attachments formed in childhood reflect into adult relationships, with Hazan and Shaver (1987) being the first to construct this theory
They suggest that individuals are secure become securely attached lovers, and these individuals find it easy to become close to partners and become comfortable with dependency
-> High on intimacy as well as passion and commitment
-> Feeney (1999) also suggests that secure attachment is linked to eros and agape love styles
-> They are more trusting, have long-term relationships, have high self-esteem and regard for others
-> They are generous and supportive when lovers are under stress and they are positive, optimistic and constructive in interacting with others
Anxious-resistant lovers are described as being more eager to be close to partners than partners are to be close to them, and they have a high fear of abandonment because they realise this
Their relationships are often characterised by a mixture of feelings and attitudes, such as a love-hate relationship
They are low on intimacy, passion and open to the manic love style (Feeney, 1999)
Other characteristics - high break-up rate despite deep involvement, intense grieving following loss, unstable self-esteem with self doubt, tend to be emotional when under stress and they are jealous and untrusting
Avoidant individuals are uncomfortable with being close to their partners, and they feel nervous when people get too close - they are low on intimacy, passion and commitment
Related to the ludus love style
Characteristics - less investment in relationships, prefer to be alone, withdraws from partner when stressed, finds social interactions boring and irrelevant, do not self-disclosure
Relation to five factor model -
Avoidant types score higher on neuroticism and lower on extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness
Anxious types score higher on neuroticism and lower on agreeableness
Secure types score higher on extraversion, agreeableness and lower on neuroticism
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) - Some anxious-avoidant types have higher self esteem than other avoidant types, and are less dependent - this has been labelled dismissive avoidant, and the other type fearful avoidant as they fail to bond due to fear of rejection
-> Several factors, including early sexual learning experiences with others, have influenced individual’s attachments in this way
Machiavellianism and narcissism have been linked with high use of online dating apps, along with high neuroticism
Hepper and Carnelley (2012) - role of internal working models of the self and others
Attachment theory - Bowlby (1969) -
Fundamental need to be connected to others and maintain proximity to caregivers when a vulnerable infant, and to activate adult attachment for good response to behaviours - reduce negative effects and increase protection
In adult relationships - internal working model
-> Zeifman and Hazan (2008) - some connection has been made between the nature of the adult pair-bond and the infant-caregiver relationship, including the types of physical contact and the release of oxytocin, which promotes bonding
-> Adult pair bonds provide the cornerstones of attachment - proximity seeking, secure base, safe haven and separation distress
-> The partner supersedes parents, and so this becoming the primary attachment bond is sensical
-> Attachment operates alongside and interacts with other behavioural systems, including caregiving and sex
-> Ainsworth’s three attachment styles were applied by Hazan and Shaver (1987), discovering that the attachment was the same in style and proportion from infancy to adulthood - individual differences in adult attachment are described on the continuous dimensions of anxiety and avoidance
Attachment anxiety - rejections, fear of abandonment, self doubt, reflecting a hyperactivated attachment system from overprotective or inconsistent caregiving (negative self positive other)
Adaptive to remain proximal to caregiver and monitor for threat
Attachment avoidance refers to avoidance of intimacy, dislike of dependence and downplaying importance of relationships - deactivated attachment system from relatively cold or rejecting caregiving (positive self negative other)
Compulsive self-reliance
Attachment security involves low levels of both, and positive models of the self and others - reflects flexible and functioning attachment system from consistent and responsive caregiving - activates response to threat which is calmed by attachment figures
Secure attachment is normative, and different styles can be reliably and accurately measured with self-report scales
The two dimensions are independent, with positive but weak correlations (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007) - a person’s level of anxiety and avoidance style of caregiving can create overcommitment to relationships and then frustration when this is not reciprocated
-> Tumultuous sex lives are also common, involving themselves in unwanted sex and unprotected sex (Birnbaum et al, 2006) - a high need for intimacy underlies many of these patterns and causes conflict
-> Highly avoidant individuals are low in satisfaction, commitment and trust, and do not seek their caregivers when stressed - have distant lives of sex and are more likely to have unemotional or casual sex
-> Self-reliance and distance underlies these patterns
Repeated priming of attachment security influences later views of self and relationships (Carnelley and Rowe, 2007) -
Those repeatedly primed with attachment security reported more positive relationship expectations, more positive self views and less attachment anxiety, with those neutrally primed showing no change
Model of self:
Contains beliefs about how worthy and loveable on is in close relationships, as well as dynamic strategies to achieve this
Examination in the literature about how self-concept and self-processes vary - valence (Leary et al, 1995), stability (Kernis and Golman, 2003) and regulation (Crocker and Wolfe, 2001)
Congruent with development of theoretical models of the self, individual differences are linked to each of these constructs
-> The sources on which self-esteem is based (valence - Hepper and Carnelley, 2010) underlie many attachment differences in romantic relationship functioning
Attachment differences in the self system -
Secure - positive and serves as a resource, fostering a true self-esteem as opposed to a self-esteem reliant on meeting certain conditions
-> Sociometer theory (Leary et al, 1995) suggests trait self-esteem reflects perceptions of social acceptance and can become functionally autonomous
-> Secure adults would have high and stable self esteem that can be regulated internally
-> Also linked to self reinforcement, self-concept clarity and stability - self-esteem does not fluctuate in response to daily feedback
Anxious - obtaining intimacy and approval from others is the main source of feelings of worth, but chronic feelings of rejection means no amount of intimacy is ever enough
Highly anxious adults would likely possess low self-esteem which is unstable as it relies on intimacy and approval, which they are contingent on and hypersensitive
Acceptance temporarily boosts it but is crushed when rejection is repeatedly perceived
Low and unstable self esteem, uncertainty about the self and poor self-reinforcement
It also predicts depression as there is overreliance on external sources for emotion regulation, and also exaggerate the importance of other people’s feedback, especially when it is negative - negative relationship events also result in low self-esteem
Avoidance - feelings of worth are disengaged from interpersonal approval and cannot be regulated internally but may become invested in independent exploration
Possess self-esteem that is not necessarily low but contingent on maintaining distance and self-reliance
However, also linked to poor self understanding, low self-clarity and poorly integrated self concepts
Positive self-reports are defensive - increased by threats to self reliance and low-avoidant people will self-enhance by inflating independent self views
Dismissing avoidance negatively relates to self-reported self worth and linked to aversion and indifference to partner feedback
Seek positive feedback about self not relationships - however, esteem boosts are not normatively boosted, and when they notice rejection it is dented
Consequences for romantic relationships
Anxiety - tumultuous as they have excessive reassurance seeking, and this can elicit rejection and depression in the partner and decreases perceived relationship quality
Combines with overreactions to negative feedback and threatening attributions to partner behaviour, leading to conflict - rejection is more damaging that conflict, suggesting it satisfies the need for attention or intimacy
Fluctuate in perceptions of partner and relationships due to events - valued partners more when they obtained approval from them (Campbell et al, 2005)
Ego-involved attitude is perceptible and undermine true affection, with future expectations of relationships being constructed by perception of conflict with and support from partners
Contingent self-esteem also explains risky sexual behaviour in new and ongoing relationships - obtain affection via sex, and often at their own detriment - low sexual esteem and low resistance to sexual pressure
Anxious young women also consent to unwanted sex to prevent their partner losing interest
Avoidance - self-reliance needs leads to distance in relationships, and they are often aversive and dismissive of feedback, and unlikely to take on feelings and preferences to improve relationships
Risky sexual behaviour - have sex to avoid intimacy and nurturance, along with emotional distance and to manipulate the partner
Young women engage in extra relationship sexual encounters to bolster their egos - more casual sex is likely
Attachment differences in views of others
Secure individuals describe others in positive ways, and are able to hold balance and kind views of their partner to treat them accordingly - stable self-identity
Anxious individuals have hopeful expectations about other people but these are confused and easily malleable depending on recent events - low uniqueness and desire to merge with others
Avoidant individuals - high uniqueness perception and no desire to merge - negative views of others and are defensively distant, describing parents simplistically - project unwanted traits onto others also
Implications and applications:
Understanding IWMs helps improve understanding of differences in relationship perceptions, behaviours and functioning - can allow development of interventions to help people correct poor behaviour or cognition
Three psychological interventions -
Focusing on positive feedback (abstract meaning for relationship) - remodel self through valence
Self-affirmation allows better coping with negative feedback - less impactful for interpersonal rejection, it establishes a coherent and clear model of the self
Expression of gratitude - target perceptions of others
Most desirable intervention would be one that promotes full security based self representations and positive self models - use of guided imagery, secure words or writing about good times leads to attachment security (Carnelley and Rowe, 2007) - move relationship toward optimal functioning and security