Week 3 - attachment 2

• caregiver characteristics are shown to not matter too much due to parent gender, lesbians, adoptions not effecting the level of securely attached infants
• attachment theory makes the claim that the cause of variation in security is down to environmental influences
• developmental theories are a special form of causal or functional relationship
• we establish causal relations through:

  1. Covariation - observed variables must co vary
  2. Non spuriousness - co variation must not be spurious (coincidence)
  3. Temporality - Causal factors must precede outcomes
• which design to use in which situation

  
• longitudinal design intervention

  
• cross lagged design fits with the causal relation criteria but auto regressive does not within longitudinal designs
• several studies have found that parental sensitivity is associated with child attachment security
• Temperament can be seen to have an effect on attachment security regardless of caregiver sensitivity
• temperament involves the tendency to approach novel stimuli and the stability of mood
• temperament is shown to be heritable in infancy by 50% (e.g., Goldsmith et al., 1999).
• poor temperament could make insecure attachments caused by lack of caregiving greater and vice versa
• Adoptive parents’ sensitivity is associated with child attachment security (e.g., Stams et al., 2002)
• A study training parental sensitivity showed that the group who increased in sensitivity were more likely to have their children securely attached to them Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2003) Meta-Analysis (K=70, N=9,957)
• Intergenerational transmission of attachment is when your attachment effects how sensitive you are with your kids
• Van Ijzendoorn, 1997 found a non spurious correlation of 0.22 between parental sensitivity and attachment security which shows a small significance but shows its not the only factor tying into child attachment security
• longitudinal and correlational evidence links caregiver sensitivity with child attachment security. Includes

  • Bakermans Kranenburg et al. (2003) meta-analysis on interventions.
  • Juffer et al. (2005) / Schoenmaker et al. (2015) adoption studies.
• Studies ruling out potential confounding variables (e.g., child temperament)

  • Groh et al. (2017) meta-analysis on temperament/attachment.
• mind mindedness is use of appropriate mental terms when interacting with infants and this is linked with both attachment  (r = .30, k=8) and sensitivity (r = .24, k = 10) (Zeegers et al., 2017).
• internalising behaviour is directed inwardly effecting yourself such as an individuals emotions and wellbeing. This includes behaviours causing anxiety, depression
• Externalising behaviour is directed outwards towards others such as aggression
• insecure resistant are seen to internalise whereas avoidant externalise and disorganised do a bit of both
• fearon et al 2010 meta analysis showed that insecure children have high levels of externalising problems however no real distinction between avoidant and resistant
• groh et al 2012 found avoidant in general are more at risk of internalising which challenges the specificity hypothesis however supports that insecure in general are more at risk
• secure children more likely to have higher social competence than insecure
• attachment security can be linked to prosocial behaviour
• issues with meta analysis are confounding factors are ignored, no causal evidence, focus on biological parents etc
• correlations between temperament, early parental sensitivity and attachment security with social competence are all weak but still significant showing it is no single one
• attachment security may effect mental health but is unlikely to be a necessary or sufficient cause of it as you can develop one without insecurity
• link between attachment and mental health may vary across different points of development