Anneli Frostell
Div. of Cognition, Development and Disability
Dept. of Behavioral Science and Learning
Linköping university

The “original” approach
• Developmental psychology
• Parent – Child
• Laboratory assessments/interview
• Gold standard
• Reliability issue (interrater reliability)
• Expensive
Attachment patterns
The Romantic Attachment approach
• Social psychology
• Adult – Adult (partners)
• Self-rating questionnaires
• Validity issue - measure something else, but related
• Inexpensive
Attachment styles

John Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980)
• Innate attachment system
Phases of the theory:
0-3 months
Non-discriminating social responsiveness
3-6 m Discriminating social responsiveness
6-36 m
(Sensitive period)
Active initiative in contact seeking and proximity maintaining
> 36 m Goal corrected partnership
Stages of separation:
Hours – 1 week Protest
Days – weeks Despair
Weeks – Detachment
• Internal working models
(IWM)
Mary Ainsworth
• The secure base concept
• The Strange Situation
(1978)
• Balance: attachment and exploration systems
• Individual differences based on the quality of care
Mary Main
• The Adult Attachment
Interview
(1985)
• Frightened/Frightening
(FR)
Bretherton, I. (1992). Dev Psych, 28(5), 759-775

• Focus on babies and the impact of maternal sensitivity on their emotional regulation and socioemotional development.
• Consequences of own early attachment related experiences on parental capabilities
• Methods:
The Strange Situation Procedure (SSP)
The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
Doll-play (M-cast)
Story stems

• 20 minute long laboratory procedure
• Elevating distress through two separations in order to activate the attachment system
• Manual based coding – extended training, interreliability
Main scales: Indices of Disorganization and Disorientation:
Proximity-/ contact-seeking behavior Sequential display of contradictory behavior patterns
Contact-maintaining behavior
Resistant behavior
Simultaneous display of contradictory behavior patterns
Undirected, Misdirected, Incomplete, and Interrupted movements
Avoidant behavior and expressions
Stereotypies, Asymmetrical movements, Mistimed movements, and
Anomalous postures
Freezing, Stilling, and Slowed movements and expressions
Direct indices of disorganization or disorientation

Patterns of behavior in SSP
A Avoidant: Poss. weak signs of missing. Avoid/ignore the parent upon reunion.
B Secure: Signs of missing. Active proximity seeking upon reunion and can use the parent as a safe have to calm down.
C Ambivalent/Resistant: Angry, clinging, avoidant, or passive upon reunion. Focuses on the parent but cannot calm down.
D Disorganized/Disoriented:
Disorganized or disoriented behaviors when the parent is present. No coherent strategy.
Patterns of care-giving at home
A Avoidant: Emotional distance, lack of sensitivity to child signals. Rejection. Predictable.
B Secure: Responsive. Emotional closeness, sensitivity and respect. Predictable.
C Ambivalent/Resistant:
Inconsistently available. Role reversal. Blurred boundaries.
Unpredictable.
D Disorganized/Disoriented:
Frightened/frightening or
Hostile/helpless.
Possibly maltreatment.

• Appropriate responses to positive and negative emotions
 awareness of emotions and controlling behaviors
• Well-coordinated regulatory patterns contributes to self-regulation and a integrated sense of self
• 9-12 month: IWM develops to represent the emotions and expectations of early dyadic patterns of interactions
(Bowlby 1969, 1973, 1980)
• IWM: Conceptual representation of self, others, and the world, enables to predict and interpret others behaviors and plan own response.
Based on Riggs, 2010

• The early attachment pattern becomes an essential component of the personality
(Bowlby, 1988; Ainsworth,
1989)
• Stability of classification from infancy via 6 years to adolescence and early adulthood
(Grossmann, Grossmann &
Waters, 2005)
• Lawful discontinuity depending of disruptive life events, e.g. death and maltreatment
(Allen et al, 2004)
• Theoretically, partly explained by IWMs impact on cognitive-affective processes
(Cassidy, 2000) :
- direct attention to specific stimuli
- create bias in memory encoding and retrieval
- guide expectations regarding availability of others
- influences attributions regarding ambiguous behaviors
Based on Riggs, 2010

• Captures current representations of early attachment experiences (IWMs)
• Surprising the unconscious
• Transcribed verbatim and coded on 17 9-point scales
(Scales for: Inferred Experience, States of mind regarding parent, Overall states of mind Extreme experiences and states of mind)
• Manual based – extended training, interreliability

F Secure-Autonomous
Value close relations, but is relatively independent & objective concerning early close relationships.
Ds Dismissing
Lack of memory, normalizing & idealizing or derogating the parent and early relations with him/her.
E Preoccupied
Passive or angry. Long irrelevant answers. Mentally entangled or preoccupied with early close relations.
(U/d) Unresolved/Disorganized ( F, Ds or E plus U/d)
Trauma/Loss. Marked mistakes in reasoning or discourse

Secure
Secure: F in the parent gives B in the baby
Insecure
Avoidant: Ds in the parent gives A in the baby
Ambivalent: E in the parent gives C in the baby
The AAI of the mother predicts
A, B or C in the child in 75% of the cases
Ref: van IJzendoorn (1995). Psychol Bull. May;117(3):387-403. (n=661)

• Doll-play (M-cast)
• Story stems (secure base scripts)
(Waters & Waters, Attach Hum Dev, 2006; 8(3): 185 – 197)
• MacArthur Preschool Strange Situation
(Cassidy & Marvin, 1992)

• Long training
• Time consuming data collection and coding (plus AAI transcriptions)
• 10% of cases double coded for inter-rater reliability
Expensive research on small groups conducted by few researchers

• Hazan and Shaver (1987) - the first to explore
Bowlby's ideas in the context of romantic relationships.
• Self-rated paper and pen questionnaires
• Early: Choose one of three categories
• Now: Dimensions of avoidance and anxiety

A. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, others want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being. 60%
B. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me. 20%
C. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people away. 20%

Self Model - patterns characterized by negative self models minus patterns characterized by positive self models
(fearful + preoccupied) MINUS (secure + dismissing) higher scores will refer to more negative models of self.
Other Model - patterns characterized by positive other models minus patterns characterized by negative other models
(secure + preoccupied) MINUS (fearful + dismissing)

Relationship Styles Questionnaire
(RSQ; Griffin & Batholomew, 1994)
Experiences of Close Relationships
(ECR-R; Fraley, Waller & Brennan,
2000)
I find it difficult to depend on other people. (Avoidant)
I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. (Avoidant)
I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others.
(Anxiety)
People are never there when you need them. (Anxiety)
I am nervous when partners get too close to me. (Avoidant)
I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down. (Avoidant)
I find that my partner(s) don't want to get as close as I would like.
(Anxiety)
I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me. (Anxiety)

The “original” approach
• Developmental psychology
• Parent – Child
• Laboratory assessments/interview
• Gold standard
• Reliability issue (interrater reliability)
• Expensive
Attachment patterns
The Romantic Attachment approach
• Social psychology
• Adult – Adult (partners)
• Self-rating questionnaires
• Validity issue - measure something else, but related
• Inexpensive
Attachment styles

Seminar paper:
• Can we talk about one attachment theory? Compare the concepts of attachment styles and attachment patterns. Do they measure the same thing, related things or different things? Take a stand and argue for your position.
Questions to discuss:
• Discuss methodological strengths and weaknesses of the attachment theory.
• Try to be critical of the attachment theory. What are the weak points?
Articles to read:
Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., Doron, G. & Shaver, P. R. (2010). The Attachment Paradox: How Can So
Many of Us (the Insecure Ones) Have No Adaptive Advantages? Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 5:123-141.
Riggs, S. A. (2010). Childhood Emotional Abuse and the Attachment System Across the Life Cycle:
What Theory and Research Tell Us. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19: 1, 5-
51.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and
Mary Ainsworth. Dev Psych, 28(5), 759-775
Fraley, R.C ., Waller, N.G. & Brennan, K.A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachmnet. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350-365.
Kurdek, L.A. (2002) On being insecure about the assessment of attachment styles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Vol. 19(6): 811–834
ECR-R: http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~rcfraley/attachment.htm
RSQ: http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/bartholomew/

Broberg, A., Granqvist, P., Ivarsson, T. & Risholm Mothander, P.
(2006). Anknytningsteori – Betydelsen av nära relationer.
Stockholm: Natur och Kultur
Broberg, A., Risholm Mothander, P., Granqvist, P., & Ivarsson, T.
(2008). Anknytningsteori i praktiken. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur
Cassidy, J. & Shaver, P.R. (red.). (1999/2010) Handbook of
Attachment. New York: The Guilford Press.
Goldberg, S. (2000). Attachment and Development. London: Arnold
Bowlby, J. (1994). En Trygg Bas. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Leach, P. (2000). De första fem åren: En ny version för en ny
generation. Stockholm: Bonnier (1999)
Hwang, P. (red.). (1999) Spädbarnets psykologi. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur