Transcript Individual Differences in Infant Attachment Security

• Attachment: An enduring emotional tie that
unites one person to another, over time and
across space (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978)
• Attachment Behaviors:
– Behaviors that function to bring the
infant/child physically closer to the caregiver
• Exs: crying, smiling, clinging, following
Evidence (Ethological Attachment Theory):
• Animals that stray from a group are much
more vulnerable to attack
• Attachment behavior in animals and
humans:
– Occurs more frequently in those most vulnerable
to predators (e.g., the young)
– Increases in frightening situations
Individual Differences in Attachment Security
Infancy: Strange Situation







Mother and infant in laboratory playroom
Stranger enters, talks to mothers, engages infant
Mother leaves (stranger stays)
Mother returns (stranger leaves)
Mother leaves (baby alone)
Stranger returns
Mother returns
• Secure (B)
– About 60-65% of American middle-class
samples
– May or may not be distressed by
separation
– Respond positively to parent’s return
• If distressed by separation, easily
comforted by parent and able to return
to play (parent = secure base)
• Insecure-Avoidant (A)
– 15-20% of American middle-class
samples
– Usually not distressed by separation from
parent
– Avoid the parent during reunion (to
different degrees)
• Insecure-Resistant or Ambivalent (C)
– 10-15% of American middle-class samples
– Usually distressed by separation
– Show a combination of angry, resistant behavior
and proximity-seeking behavior during reunion
with parent
– Have difficulty being comforted by parent and
returning to play
• Insecure-Disorganized (D)
– 10-15% of American middle-class samples
– More common in infants who have been
maltreated
– Infants’ behavior does not reflect an organized
strategy for dealing with the stress of separation
• Contradictory behaviors
• Expressions of fear or disorientation when
caregiver returns
Influences on Infant Attachment Security
• According to attachment theory, the major
influence is parental behavior (especially
sensitivity)
– Sensitivity: Consistent, prompt, and
appropriate responses to infant signals
• Infants develop expectations about how
caregivers are likely to respond to their
signals
• Expectations form the basis of an internal
working model
– IWM: Expectations about the nature of
relationships and beliefs about the self
• Expectations result from the quality of
mother-infant interaction:
– Sensitive Care: Infants expect caregiver to be
available and responsive
– Insensitive Care: Infants expect caregiver to
be unresponsive/inconsistent or rejecting
• Infants’ behavior in the Strange Situation
reflects their expectations (early IWM)
– Secure infants expect caregiver to be
responsive
– Insecure infants expect caregiver to be
unresponsive/inconsistent or rejecting
• Evidence for Parental Behavior as the
Major Influence on Infant Attachment
Security:
– Parental sensitivity is correlated with infant
attachment security, but the correlation is not
strong
• Disagreement about the importance of parental
sensitivity in influencing attachment security
– Other factors also affect attachment security
Temperament and Attachment Security
– Some studies find that insecure infants are
higher in distress during the first year of life
• Difficult to know if this reflects temperament or
parental behavior
– In general, temperament is not strongly
related to attachment security
Attachment and Later Development
• A secure attachment in infancy is related to:
– More positive interactions with parents in the
second year of life
– More positive relationships with others (e.g., day
care teachers, peers) when children are toddlers
and preschoolers
• Infant attachment security is not strongly
related to the quality of older children’s
relationships (in most studies)
– Debate about how strongly infant attachment
security relates to later social development
• Why does infant attachment security
predict later behavior (at least shortterm)?
Attachment Theory Perspective:
• Attachment security reflects infants’
internal working models
• IWM generalizes to new relationships
– Children with secure attachments:
• Expect others to respond positively to them
– Children with insecure attachments:
• Expect others to respond negatively to them
(e.g., by ignoring or rejecting them)
• IWMs tend to be self-perpetuating
– Children behave in ways that elicit certain
responses from others
– Others’ responses confirm children’s internal
working models
Continuity of Care Perspective:
• Parents who are sensitive in infancy are
likely to remain sensitive as children grow
older
• Sensitivity is related to secure attachment
in infancy and to more positive adjustment
as children get older
• Secure attachment in infancy does not
CAUSE more positive later adjustment (no
IWM)
Relevant Evidence:
• Most evidence indicates that infant
attachment classifications do not predict
later behavior if quality of caregiving does
not remain stable
Parent-Child Relationships After Infancy
• Baumrind’s Parenting Styles:
– Parental behavior varies along at least two
dimensions
• Sensitivity/Acceptance
• Control (“Demandingness”)
Authoritarian
• High control
• Low acceptance/responsiveness
• Power-assertive discipline
• Ex: “Do it because I say so”
• More likely to use physical punishment
Authoritative
• High acceptance/responsiveness
• Moderate control
– Set clear standards and consistently enforce
rules
– Responsive to children’s needs and point of
view
• Discipline based on reasoning/explanation
and less power-assertive punishment
(e.g., “time out”, loss of privileges)
– “It’s not ok to hit people because it hurts
them.”
Permissive
• High acceptance/responsiveness
• Low control
– Make few demands for mature behavior
Neglecting/Disengaged
• Low acceptance/responsiveness
• Low control
• Parents often overwhelmed by stress;
have little time/energy for children
Authoritarian
Childhood:
•
•
•
•
Anxious
Unhappy
Dependent/Easily Frustrated (esp. girls)
Hostile/Aggressive (esp. boys)
Authoritarian
Adolescence:
• Poorer social skills and lower academic
achievement than children of authoritative
parents
• Better school performance and less problem
behavior (e.g., drug use, truancy) than children
of permissive or neglecting parents
Authoritative
Childhood:
– High self-esteem
– High self-control
– Generally positive mood
Authoritative
Adolescence:
– Good social skills
– High academic achievement
– Low in problem behaviors (e.g., drug use,
truancy)
Permissive
Childhood:
• Low self-control
• Overly demanding and dependent on
adults
Permissive
Adolescence:
– Low academic achievement
– More problem behaviors (e.g., truancy; drug
use)
Neglecting/Disengaged
• Childhood:
– Low self-control
– Low self-esteem
– Disturbed attachment relationships
(disorganized)
Neglecting/Disengaged
• Adolescence:
– Low academic achievement
– Poor social skills
– Many problem behaviors
• Truancy, drug use, delinquency, sexual
promiscuity, depression
Issues Related to Parenting Research
Bidirectional Influences
• How do children’s characteristics and behavior
affect parenting style?
• General agreement that socialization processes
are bidirectional rather than unidirectional
– Parental behavior influences children’s behavior, but
children’s behavior also affects parental behavior
Example:
• Infants and children with “difficult”
temperament characteristics receive less
“optimal” parenting under some conditions
• Less “optimal” parenting may increase
children’s problem behaviors
Correlation vs. Causation
• Most research on parenting styles is
correlational
– Can’t randomly assign kids to different kinds
of parents
– Therefore, can’t infer cause-and-effect
relationships
• Can’t say that parenting style CAUSES children’s
behavior (positive or negative)
• However, some research has examined
experimental parenting interventions
– Designed to improve parenting behavior
• Use random assignment—some families receive
the intervention and others do not
• Can infer cause-and-effect relationships
• Experimental parenting interventions have
shown improvements in parenting
behavior and improvements in children’s
adjustment
• Parenting styles (and their “effects”) may
not generalize to all ethnic/cultural groups
• Example:
– Chinese parents more likely to be classified
as authoritarian (high control)
– Authoritative parenting and authoritarian
parenting show equally positive relations with
children’s adjustment (for 1st generation
Chinese-American children)