Attachment- Professor Mikulincer - class notes

Attachment and its relevance in psychology:

-Attachment started w/ Bowlby as a developmental theory that dealt w/ the primary relationship b/w child & his mother. This came as a reaction to the accepted Freudian approach & in the last decades became a very important theory in other areas as well:

1. Personality (abnormal & clinical psych): Attachment theories no longer only explain how the child-mother relationship is created. They also give a certain perspective on personality development & good personality functioning/malfunctioning (personality disorders). Therefore, attachment is also relevant to abnormal & clinical psychology. Attachment theories also give a relevant framework for psychotherapy.
2. Interpersonal relationships (social psych): Attachment theories explain how we create relationships w/ others. This makes attachment relevant to social psychology as well.
3. Organizational psychology: Because attachment theories deal w/ hierarchical relationships (mother is smarter/stronger than the baby) & we are likely to develop attachment relations w/ the stronger & smarter, it could also be applied to the manager-employee relationship, “the good enough manager”.
4. Stress: One of the basic claims of the attachment theory is that relation mother-child relation is created as a regulatory mechanism for dealing w/ crisis. At first, the regulation takes place w/ the help of others & later w/ the help of internal representations of others, therefor this theory is also relevant to stressful situations. (stress)
5. Developmental psychology: Developmental theory relevant to preparation of processes of emotional, social & cognitive development.

Contributions to the popularity of the attachment theory:

1. Cognition: Include cognition in their theory at a time when psychology is controlled by the cognitivists. The central component of the theory: internal representations (cognitions).
2. Brain development: Evidence of brain bases for attachment, certain receptors at cortical & subcortical levels & hormonal. There is a biological evidence to this theory. Connected to Bowlby’s first claim that attachment is above all an innate evolutional system.
3. Psychodynamics: Despite the fact that Bowlby developed the theory as a counter reaction to the Freudian approach. He goes against all psychodynamics on the subject defensive processes, the relationship composed b/w fantasy & reality, internal conflicts & more.

Attachment- closeness & attraction b/w one object & another. Bowlby called this attachment & not relationship, b/c it’s not the same as a relationship. It’s different, b/c attachment is part of the relationship.

Difference: Attachment doesn’t equal relationship. There’s no argument about this. Attachment is a certain special kind of interaction w/ other, of keeping closeness to others (physical/symbolic) as a means of emotional & self regulation.

Conditions for attachment:

1. There needs to be another: either an actual object or imaginary or representational of the other.
2. Desire/attempt to keep/attain closeness to the other: closeness that could be physical (touch), emotional, cognitive (consensus- agreement ---), or symbolic (these 2 conditions must exist in order for attachment).
3. Necessary condition for attachment: The closeness is a means of regulation (of crisis). If for example I’m in in a situation of emotional imbalance if due to external/internal danger & I need the other’s closeness to calm me down, support me & guide me to continue growing & developing. Ex. If I’m in a good mood & offer my friend to come to movies w/ me. This isn’t attachment, it’s a activation of the friendship system (affiliation). Another example is asking a friend to study for a test w/ me. This is an excellent relationship, but there’s no attachment involved, even though there is dependence-there’s an activation of an investigation & learning system. If I offer my partner to sleep w/ me, the sexual system is activated here- having fun. Relationships b/w people include different levels & evolutional psychology sees that different systems are activated in relationships among people (the game, investigation, sexual, friendship systems).

Q. When does a relationship become attachment relationship? A. When I need the other person or to his representation that exists w/in me for need of calming, support or solution of a problem that I’m faced w/. If for example I went to the movies w/ my friend & on the way there’s a terrorist attack, then the need for attachment is aroused & then the relationship becomes an attachment relationship. Or if we learn through something & we run into an obstacle together, here there is a need for attachment.

-An attachment relationship is firstly a relationship of support & protection that enables better self-regulation, so that not every type of interaction can be defined as attachment.

-This need for attachment is biological (Bowlby) & automatic.

-When someone is in a crisis, the attachment system is activated, therefore if the person will always be under stress & anxiety, he won’t be able to function in life.

2 levels of attachment: Interaction-Relationship:

Time criterion: Relationship characterized as an attachment relationship is usually not temporary. One can discuss attachment at the level of interaction, or at the deeper level of an attachment relationship. At the relationship level we ask whether the attachment figure satisfies the need. The relationship system operates firstly at the interaction level (the more temporary level), interpersonal episode.

-Attachment is a type of dependency & egotism, taking advantage of the other’s kindness in order to calm ourselves.

Emotional regulation: Arriving at homeostasis, balance (not in order to create emotions- heterostasis) & calming so that other systems will be able to operate & function.

Differentiation #2:

Attachment isn’t equivalent to a relationship w/ only a single person (there are arguments among different schools of thought on this differentiation), meaning attachment isn’t limited to specific relationships. It is incorrect to say that only my relationship w/ my mother, in certain stages of life is an attachment relationship. This is in contrast to the orthodox approach of attachment (developmental psychologist’s approach) that claims specificity of the attachment connection. Mikulincer & others claims that came from theories of personality, that one can create attachment relationships w/ every other person, & therefore one can create attachment episodes & interaction in non-attachment relationships as well.

Q. Can the patient-therapist relationship be an attachment relationship, a relationship in the framework of therapy?

A. The orthodox would claim that this isn’t an attachment relationship, b/c they pay the therapist & it’s temporary. Others would claim that this is, b/c in a therapy relationship, the 3 conditions exist: The person comes to therapy, b/c he’s in crisis. The patient turns to someone to help work on the pain/fears & to arrive at a new balance- in the therapy episodes, closeness is created & it’s a fact that one of the elements of therapy meeting, is the belief, the bond, & w/o this the therapy won’t work. Meaning, a strong emotional relationship is created w/ the therapist. On one hand, not every interaction is attachment (avoid over exaggeration). On the other hand, the attachment isn’t limited to a specific interaction (avoid narrowing too much).

2 approaches:

1. Developmental psychology: There is the orthodox approach that claims the specificity of attachment relationships (limited to certain relationships).
2. Personality psychology (Mikulincer’s approach): Lack of specificity. Attachment isn’t limited to specific relationships.

-In addition to these 2 differentiations, it’s important to say that the division isn’t sharp & clear. We need 2 clarifications:

1. Attachment system can influence in an indirect way. When I satisfy the need, this creates emotional regulation. Then, the other systems become available for treatment in other ways (searching for excitement, sex, game, investigation). As soon as these systems aren’t regulated correctly, attachment doesn’t function correctly & we’re in trouble. If that person creates a relationship w/ a friend, every time he turns to him when he’s in trouble, he doesn’t get regulation, & representations of the other as an evil, not caring, egotistical figure who you can’t trust, are created w/in him. What are the chances that I’ll want to go out w/ a person like this. I will stop so that the attachment relationship will continue to have an influence in an indirect way based on my internal representations that tell me what I can expect from the other person.
2. It is also clear that the primary relationships of attachment are significant, the relationship w/ the parents. Their importance involves that according to these experiences, the internal representations of the other are built, like for example that we can trust them. What happens in the significant primary relationships, influences the rest of our lives.

Central element in the attachment system – mental representations

02-18-03

Basic terms of attachment theories

Behavioral system- term taken from ethology (understanding behavior by observing it as it happens in its natural conditions) & evolutional approaches to connect behavior to evolutional psychology. Defined as a pattern of behaviors developed throughout the generations in the evolution process. It has a survival function that it attains through executions of the behaviors connected to the system, meaning, we have a collection of behaviors of a certain type & the question, what’s the behavioral unit I’m investigating, is aroused. How do we define the behavioral unit?

Ex. In the Skinner Box, the behavior measured is the pressing on the lever, but this includes a multitude of behaviors, from raising the hand to pressing. But what is the basic behavior or behavioral unit?

• The ethogical approach claims that a behavioral unit is a system of behaviors that have a certain goal. If the goal of pressing lever is the to get food, then all of the actions connected to pressing the lever will be part of the behavioral unit. The behaviors are defined by the goal they attain.

It all comes from the species’ development: Development of the behavior:

Reflex- a motor reaction as a function of a certain stimulus, S-R

Fixed action pattern- S---R

Behavioral system (see picture)

Reflex (no learning): Automatic system of reaction to stimulus. W/ Pavlov’s dog, this is the stimulus response. Here there is no specific goal, b/c the response is automatic & one response to one specific stimulus.

Fixed action pattern (no learning): Response to a stimulus that doesn’t happen right away (which is what makes it different from reflex). There are situations in which there is a delay. Ex. A bull’s response to a red cape. W/in the action there are many factors involved & the connection b/w the stimulus & response is much more complex. Sometimes this involves different systems (sensory, motor, etc.). Like Laurence’s ducks (imprint), this isn’t a reflex, b/c it involves several systems. Here there also isn’t goal-directed behavior (see picture).

• Among mammals a certain stimulus can cause all sorts of different responses. Therefore, one response can be the result of many different stimuli. Meaning that among mammals, there is much more flexibility, therefore we can learn all sorts of responses to different stimuli (laws of learning).

• There is no learning involved in a reflex or in fixed action pattern. The ethologists claim that there are automatic, not learned behaviors, but that don’t have to be one stimulus or one response, rather a lot of responses can be activated (automatically) by one stimulus & many other stimuli that can create one response.

• The behavioral system developed throughout generations. This is the readiness to respond in a certain way to certain stimuli. Now that it isn’t one to one (S-R) à [As in a reflex or fixed action pattern, where the response is defined by the stimulus]. Here what is missing is what unites the entire system & this is the contribution of the functionalist approach that claims that these responses have a common goal, therefore they’ll be connected to the same behavioral system (this is true for stimulus & for responses). Ex. Sexuality isn’t something learned, every learner knows how to have sex even w/o having learned it.

Q. What arouses the sexual behavioral system?

A. There isn’t one specific stimulus that sexually arouses us, rather several different stimulus (nudity, sexual thoughts, sounds).

Q. Is there one sexual response?

A. The joining/friendship & society aren’t the only responses of the sexual system, rather masturbation, kissing & hugging, are as well- then sexual system is working as well.

• Sexuality is a behavioral system, that in an unlearned way developed different responses that serve a certain function, reproduction & passing on the genes, this is what promises species survival. Because there are many responses activated by the system as well as a lot of stimuli that activate that same system, it’s a behavioral system.

• It is possible to connect behavior X to one system or another according to the goal that the behavior serves, according to the functionality of the same behavior. Ex. The wrestling behavior of children in children, when is it a game & when is it aggressiveness? This behavior can sometimes be connected to the play behavioral system & sometimes it can be connected to the territorial or aggressiveness behavioral system according to the goal of the behavior & the stimuli that aroused it.

• Behavioral systems reflect adaptational functions that we all deal w/ in our lifetime. These are problems that the species needs to solve in order to survive. In order to know which behavioral system a response belongs to, we need to observe the behavior & check what stimuli arouse/activate it.

• The term “behavioral system” attempts to provide order & check what the principal problems we as people need to deal w/ from the moment of birth until death. The readiness that people are born w/.

• When we focus on S-R, we can’t explain all sorts of complex responses & behaviors. The behavioral system allows us to deal w/ the functional connection b/w different stimuli & responses.

In order to define behavioral system, we must define a few terms:

1. What is the function it serves? The function is usually a survival function (connected to all of the systems).
2. Goal: what problem is the organism faced w/ & how does it solve the problem? The goal is to solve the problem. Ex. In the behavioral system of raising children, the goal of the system is to deal w/ the problem of raising the kids & maintaining their physical welfare.
3. Responses: How do we define the responses connected to the system?
4. Stimuli: What are the stimuli that activate the system? Every system has a goal, responses & stimuli specific to it.
5. Cognitive base that accompanies the system

-All of the above are in the layers of people. This is what is common among all people! How can this explain interpersonal differences? The behavioral system defines everything common among all mammal for example.

• Every species has limits to what it can learn. There are things that are easier for us to learn b/c of our biological readiness. This is in contrast to Watson’s claim, “Give me any kid & I’ll turn him into whatever I want.” He claimed to the lack of limits & this is incorrect. Ex. It is harder to condition avoidance responses to electric shock through a conditioned stimulus of a sweet taste than of a conditioned stimulus of a bitter taste, that is easier to condition to.

Q. What is the attachment behavioral system?

A. We will go into details about the goal, responses & stimuli.

1. Goal: Its goal is attaining protection from danger & threat through closeness to someone who can provide protection. Why does it (danger) appear? The goal is attaining protection, or in Bowlby’s words, security, & how is connected to emotional regulation? When there is danger/threat & we get protection from them, this provides a feeling of security. The goal is attaining security & not closeness! The closeness is only a means of attaining the goal. Attachment’s purpose is to attain security through closeness. If the system works optimally, you see, optimal function of the system would be through attaining a pause & emotional regulation. This is an egotistical system. We are operated by a force, that seeks security. The closeness provides security & the security is the final goal. The security is the calming & peaceful feeling (homeostasis). Sroufe claimed to the objectivity of security & discussed felt security. Bowlby’s claim is important to the dispute w/ psychoanalysis: according to psychoanalysis, the primary relationship w/ the primary caregiver, is a result of learning (classical conditioning). The mother provides physical needs & the baby that wasn’t connected to the mother, connects b/w the positive feelings of satisfaction of hunger/thrist/pain, & the smells & what the mother looks like. The connection to the mother is a learned due to satisfaction of physiological needs or as a form of operant conditioning- because she rewards & it’s used as second order conditioning. Bowlby claims that this isn’t so. The relationship w/ the caregiver is primary. The need to be connected to the mother is biological, just as is the need for food, etc, & the mother satisfies this need. So the baby becomes connected to her (importance of closeness to the mother). If the mother is available & nearby when the baby is distressed or when a stranger appears (danger), the mother needs to be close in order to provide security for the baby. Psychoanalysis: The desire to be w/ the mother is secondary, b/c they learned that she satisfies needs. Bowlby: The need to be w/ the mother is a need that we are born w/, b/c throughout the generations, we have learned that this caregiving figure provides security & protection. At the species level (philogenetics), there is no difference b/w psychoanalysis & Bowlby, but at the level of ontogenetics, at the level of the individual baby, there exists a basic difference. According to Bowlby the baby is born optimistic, w/ the knowledge that there is someone they can count on. From the start, the baby expects that the mother will protect him. The baby has a primary need for closeness that is for the need of security & the security is still the means of attaining security.

2. Responses: Which responses are connected to the attachment system? Every response that attains the goal we stated previously- attaining closeness for need of security (the goal is attaining security through closeness to the other). Attachment response is attaining closeness. In infancy, crying & signaling in some way of discomfort, & continuing through active closeness to the attachment figure, or through the symbolic system (such as calling up a close friend or thinking about/imagining that same person, in order to attain that closeness). In the beginning, the closeness must be physical, such as touch, but afterwards can be attained symbolically. Attachment responses- every behavior that serves the attainment of goal of the system & therefore we need to assess the situation. Ex. When a smile symbolizes thanking someone. This is an attachment response, b/c it rewards the attachment figure & increases the chances that the next time the attachment figure will be more available for the smiling baby. Different examples of attachment responses & behaviors: Anxiety that arouses the person to come protect me. “Hope anger” (Bowlby): I’m angry in an interpersonal situation & give off that he needs to fix something in his actions in order for me to go back to being calm & secure.

02-25-03

Stimuli: Many stimuli can activate the attachment system. The system can provide many responses.

Q. Which stimuli activate the need to search for defense via closeness to someone else (in the attachment system)?

A. Danger stimuli & threat.

Q. What makes up danger?

A. In history, the most evident danger was predator animals. Bowlby calls these stimuli natural clues of danger. There are stimuli in nature such as darkness that indicate danger. In the dark there is a risk that something dangerous will happen, b/c we can’t see well. With children who are afraid of the dark at an older age (9 years old for example), this could be an expression of an attachment problem. An additional sign of danger is sickness. As soon as the body is weak, we are less protected, therefore when a child is sick he seeks closeness to the caregiving figure. It is the same regarding fatigue & loud noises. Any change in environment or in the organism that leaves us vulnerable, weaker & more exposed to danger, there can be a stimulus to the attachment system. The older we get, the stimuli become more varied & spread out (like an exam), b/c of conditioning, etc. Ex. We are afraid before a test, b/c failure threatens our self-esteem & self-esteem affects social acceptance. Then the person becomes more vulnerable to dangers when he doesn’t have a lot of friends (b/c there won’t be someone to help them when they’re in danger). Leary discusses that the more social acceptance there is the higher self-esteem. A blow to self-esteem is learned/cultural & unnatural sign of danger.

?Theory of control fear? תאורית בקרת האימה (Greenberg, Solomon): The function of self-esteem is to protect us from awareness of death. In the Western culture, whoever has low self-esteem will think about death more. Every stimulus that indicates danger arouses the need for closeness & arouses the attachment system.

-Bowlby claims that among mammals & human beings, the behavioral system includes a cognitive base. B/c there are many different responses & stimuli & everybody experiences something different, we need a cognitive element that will help us find what the most efficient response is, otherwise, we could call it goal-oriented behavior. There is a big problem (point of origin, midway stops, & goal).

Q. What steps do we take (midway stops)?

A. We must understand the conditions, & act in a way of, “If… then”. This is how we progress towards the goal. In the end, we build scripts. In order to make the system more efficient we must involve cognition, otherwise we’d all work like robots & that’s not adaptational.

Q. If the only way to attain closeness is a hug, what will the child do when the mother isn’t home for example? How does one choose the efficient steps? We need memories, cognitive base, representations that include procedural knowledge & declarative knowledge (who is the mother, what does she like, what makes her happy, who am I, what am I good at, what is danger, etc.). One also needs knowledge on the existent conditions, what does it mean that mom left me at preschool?

-The procedural knowledge is how to make the mother happy, etc. There are several scripts that help us attain closeness in many different ways. This procedural & declarative knowledge activates us & according to this, we choose w/ what response to react. Goal corrected behavior & not goal oriented behavior- we correct the behavior. This cognitive action doesn’t need to be conscious. Usually it is conscious, when the scripts aren’t working well, however when it all flows nicely, it’s unconscious. The behavior is standardized through knowledge & the knowledge opens up many possibilities for behavior. From this we can understand interpersonal relationships. One child learns that he gets attention through a hug & another child learns that he gets attention through screaming (the system doesn’t differentiate b/w a hug & a scream in this matter).

Bowlby discussed:

Working models: Work indicates 2 things:

1. Cognitive representations & knowledge that help us adapt & improves our work
2. Unfinished/uncompleted models, they are in a stage of activity & change

-The cognitive knowledge that we accumulate in memory can be changed. This is difference b/w Bowlby & object relation theories according to which everything is closed- what happened in one year of life, dictates what comes next.

Cognitive determinism:

Top-down- a generalization process, conservative. Every situation the person encounters, he remembers & interprets it according to existing knowledge- existing schemas that help him understand the situation. From the schemasà to the stimuli. Neuropsychological theories- representations- cognitive self representations are permanent & difficult to change.

Bottom-up- there is new knowledge, a new stimuli & according to what exists now in the stimulus, we store in memory. This is an analytical that requires many resources. This happens in new situations about which there is no prior knowledge.

-A combination of the 2, help solve problems in the best way. In the beginning there’s a bottom-up process & them top-down. However, in the case of top-down the bottom-up also continues working. Bowlby discusses this in working models. New info can change the existing schemas. This is important in psychotherapy. This is the key to understanding change & lack of fixation of the system.

-Bowlby also discussed:

1. Working models of others- memories I have about other people regarding how & how much he can provide protection. How much can he respond to my attachment responses & provide protection. Can he protect me?
2. Working models of self- memories & knowledge I have about myself, how do I look when I ask the other for safety & protection? Am I strong & can I activate the other or weak & unable to do so? Am I capable of attaining his closeness? Am I worthy of his closeness? Do I have a past in his opinion? The knowledge that is connected to a situation in which I need the closeness of the other. *If the system worked optimally, it would look as follows: the caregiving figure is sensitive to me, loves me & helps me. I can activate him (I cry & he calms me for example). There is danger, I look for closeness & the other calms me & this is stored in memory. This interaction is rewarding.
3. Working models of interaction- the knowledge I have on my interaction w/ the other.

• The attachment system doesn’t work in a vacuum. There are other systems active in the organism that the attachment system interacts w/. According to Bowlby the connections are easy- as soon as attachment system is activated (at a time of danger), the other systems are involved and execute inhibition. When we seek closeness there’s not time to go study, to seek love, etc, b/c we’re seeking security. As soon as the attachment system has reached its goal (protection, security), then the other systems are reactivated. Later the person becomes available to do all sorts of things. This means that if there was danger & the system didn’t work as it should have, it will continue to inhibit & disturb the other systems & a feeling of security will not be attained.

• In every interaction memories are created. When a baby has security, he can distance himself from the caregiving figure. When the baby distances himself, there’s danger again, b/c he’s alone. The baby will look to see that the mother’s around & will come close to her. Every step creates autonomy that can activate the system again. If the system works optimally, meaning there was danger & the caregiving figure provided security, the person internalizes this & then he has knowledge that the figure will help & protect him. Then the baby can distance himself a little more from the mother, b/c he has the knowledge in his memory that the mother is there & she can be trusted.

• As soon as there is such knowledge of an attachment figure that can protect them when in danger, it’s possible to try all sorts of things, to take risks, etc, b/c there’s a secure base. The secure base allows the creation of dangers, taking risks, b/c there’s always the knowledge that they can return to the secure base. This is how the system is supposed to work.

03-04-03

1. Up until now we’ve discussed the universal components of theories of attachment: Cognitive base & interactions w/ other systems, etc.
2. Second component of the theory: Individual differences. Bowlby tried to understand the differences b/w people on planes relevant to the system, through formulating the attachment system.

Q. How do we formulate the existing differences in the attachment system’s operation?

A. Normal functioning of the attachment system:

ENCOUNTER w/ THREATENING STIMULUS

SYSTEM ACTIVATION Inhibition of other systems

RESPONSE of SEEKING/MAINTAINING CLOSENESS to

FIGURES WHO PROVIDE PROTECTION

CLOSENESS ATTAINED This is a source of individual differences: There’s

interaction b/w the organism & attachment figure. If

PROTECTION ATTAINED the attachment figure responds in accordance to the

organism’s demands (they provide closeness &

protection) the system stops working. However if the

attachment figure doesn’t respond in accordance a

problem is created, b/c the goal of the system isn’t

attained & the system continues working &

continues inhibiting other systems. (Sometimes

closeness is attained & w/o protection & therefore

they’re separated.)

SYSTEM STOPS WORKING

OTHER SYSTEMS REACTIVATED

Abnormal functioning of the system: Closeness or protection aren’t attained (in either case protection isn’t attained). (This can happen throughout our entire lives not just in primary attachment.) When there is failure w/in the system, the system starts using coping strategies to deal w/ the failure:

1. Hyperactivation: Demanding closeness/protection more intensely (instead of crying we scream for example). Either the system tries to find a more appropriate response (if my response didn’t get me closeness & protection), w/ much more effort, OR
2. Deactivation: The system has an unnatural pause (here we’re discussing the episodic level). The system activity stops w/o having attained security- the threatening stimulus still exists.

-W/ hyperactivation, the chance of attaining our goal still exists unlike deactivation, where we give up. In hyperactivation the person also increases the risk of getting hurt (failure)- not attaining protection, whereas in deactivation the risk no longer exists (in short-term).

The Attachment System in Learning Terms

Learned helpelessness (Seligman)- Case in which the organism encounters a situation he has no control over- no matter what it does, it fails at attaining its goal. As a result of this experience, there is apathy, passivity & difficulty to learn that can influence things. This situation is parallel to that which we described in attachment. There’s activation of the system & the system doesn’t work. If this happens many times, there person will be an a situation of helplessness, but in the first stages, there’s an opposite situation- reactance which is parallel to hyperactivation. If there’s only 1 or 2 failures, they’ll try harder (in learning & in attachment). Meaning, that if momentarily, the attachment figure can’t provide protection, there will be hyperactivation. However, if this happens over & over, the person will become trapped, he’ll work harder w/ no success. This leads to helplessness. Each time he invests more & more, therefore the stress level goes up. Each failure causes more frustration & then there’s also the threatening stimulus & there’s no one who’ll respond & the stress increases. At a certain point, the stress will overwhelm the person so much to the point where the hyperactivation won’t be organized & will then become passive, etc. This is a situation of despair, not giving up. He doesn’t know how to extricate himself from the situation- he’s trapped. Therefore, if the hyperactivation attains the goal, that’s great. If it doesn’t help, the person gets into a complex situation. Every time we do another hyperactivation move, it becomes harder to give up. There’s escalation.

• If in the first stages there’s no reactance, then there’s no hyperactivation & there will be deactivation in the 1^st stage. Deactivation causes us to avoid certain situations & cause us to restrict ourselves. On the other hand this alleviates, b/c if he wouldn’t have succeeded anyway, he saved himself the entire hyperactivation process of, learned helplessness, etc.

Q. What determines in which episodes the person will do hyperactivation & in which episodes he’ll do deactivation?

A. There’s no clear answer.

There are certain things that influence every episode:

1. Context of the episode: Who’s there, what’s going on, etc.
2. The background I come to the episode w/: What I was born w/, such as difficulty calming down, a certain temperament, etc. & from past situations. Ex. Sometimes babies are born w/ difficulty regulating feelings. Then they are more dependent on others to regulate them & they have a harder time deactivating.

• In hyperactivation as well as in deactivation, there can be success & failure. Failure of the 2 options, will cause the same result- disorganization, confusion & lack of knowledge of how to deal w/ the world.

Transition from episodic level to human level:

Working models: We need to use this term that is the representation of the interaction b/w the organism & the figure. In every interaction in which the attachment system is activated, an internal representation of that interaction is created. Meaning, its memory is created that allows me to plan my steps in the future. There is a self-representation & a representation of the other w/in the interaction.

• In our 1^st reactions, I collect info on myself & on the other when there is a successful interaction, then I have a self-representation & representation of the other in this type of interaction, however not every interaction is a successful one. W/ the same person there is also a failure interaction & there are self-representations & representations of the other. In memory, we collect info about the interaction & its results. In a failure interaction, the interaction doesn’t end in failure, b/c this depends on hyperactivation or deactivation. Then we’ll have info stored in our memory on a failure interaction plus hyperactivation & of a failure interaction plus deactivation. Meaning, when I talk about my relationship w/ X, at the episodic level, there are many episodes & in each episode I have a self representation & one of the other- declarative knowledge. In each of these episodes there are certain things in common: Me, X, but at a more concrete level, there’s another common denominator- the results of the interaction. W/in the same situations in different contexts, there is something in common- the system worked successfully in some of the cases.

• The memory system economizes & it does categorization. The working model brings us to learn where there was success & where there was failure. Therefore, we’ll have a category of my relationship w/ X, & a sub-category of successful interactions. I’ll also have a sub-category of interactions w/ hyperactivation & there’ll be an additional sub-category of interactions w/ deactivation.

• In the end, we make a general schema of our relationship w/ X. The type of interaction w/ higher frequency & more importance from the standpoint of the system is the one that will execute my relationship w/ X. Then towards a certain person I’ll have certain expectations. This is the function of the working model. If the relationship is characterized by a successful interaction, my expectations will be in accordance, however even if I have good expectations, I have memories & expectations of less successful interactions. Therefore environmental cues can cause us to act in a certain way w/ X- there’s importance to the connection.

03-11-03

-Transition from episode to personality is done through representations. According to Bowlby we represent the episodes as working models. Each episode has its own representation (episodic memories). In these representations we have declarative knowledge (about the self & other) as well as procedural knowledge (strategies of attaining security, etc. = what happened w/in the event). There are representations of events w/ hyperactivation, security, deactivation, etc. We have numerous episodes concerning a certain person.

-One of the principles of the cognitive system is economising. There’s a lot of overload w/ episodes in memory that cognitive system can’t handle, therefore it narrows it down by seeking the common denominator, the broader representations. The cognitive system wants to organize our knowledge into a small number of categorical representations. Ex. There are day events & ngiht events. One can narrow down all events connected to day & all those connected to night. We can also do this for events in which we were kissed, carressed, etc- we can categorize everything.

-In attachment, there are overloads both relevant/irrelevant to the system’s functioning. If we were embraced, kissed, carressed, it is less relevant when all 3 actions soothed me. However, if each action causes a different reaction (hugà soothing, kissà tension), it is relevant. The info that the system needs to put out from each episode, is what happened in the event, therefore they can be narrowed down into categories according to the results. Events in which the system functioned properly & we receive security, failure events w/ hyperactivation & failure events w/ deactivation.

-This info isn’t sufficient. Ex. I am going to meet X & concerning X, I have categories of success, & failure w/ hyperactivation & w/ failure deactivation.

Q. How will I know what will happen? There aren’t clear rules about when each situation happens.

A. This is the reason that the system creates a new category of the“relationship w/ X” in which there the failures & successes are included, however in the end, they are defined by one of them.

Availability: What is available in the cognitive system is a sign that it is there now. The fact that the info is available doesn’t mean it’s accessible.

Accessiblity: The representation is accessible when it influences info-processing. A representation can be accessible & could influence w/o the person them being aware of this. Our representations of success & failures are available to us, but not always accessible. They’re accessible only when we are asked to think about them, for example. This is a working memory. W/in the attachment system, there is availability of several different episodes (successes & failures), however not all of these things are accessible at a given time & only a small part of them will be accessible at a given time. This in turn will determine how I relate to X at that time. If what is accessible at that time are memories of success, our expectations will be in accordance (same regarding hyperactivation failures & deactivation failures).

Q. How is the accessiblity of specific info determined?

A. There are 2 types of accessiblity:

1. Dispositional- Repeats itself, meaning accessibility that characterizes a certain person in different situations. We all have factors that determine chronic accessibility of certain representations. The factors of the strength of the representation.

• Strength- a representation is stronger based on its use. The more accessible a representation was in the past (appeared in memory more often), the stronger it becomes. Meaning that the more episodes supporting the representation, the stronger & more accessible it will be (works according to: what was in the past will be in the future). The other representations will be available, but not accessible.

2. Contextual- the context, the associative connections the representation has w/ other representations. Contextual component: factors existing in the situation itself (or immediately beforehand), that can cause less dominant representations to become accessible. Q. What are these factors? A. (1) Things in situations that bring up associations, such as explicit

directions. Think of a case in which mom wasn’t accessible.

(2) Our goals when we enter a situation: will raise representations that

are more suitable to the goal/purpose. Ex. The goal to be sociable will

bring up representations that the other was sociable (this usually

isn’t something we’re aware of).

(3) Mood

*Meaning accessibility is connected to external/internal signals. Even awareness itself influences accessibility.

• Associative connections w/ other representations: There are events more important than others. Ex. Mother usually provides security, however in a few critical cases, she didn’t provide security. These few cases will have more of an influence even though this barely ever happened, b/c this was critical. Ex. Mom didn’t pay attention when I had a stomach ache & nothing happened. This will have less of an affect than a case in which mom didn’t pay attention when I had a stomach ache & it turned into an appendicitis- meaningfullness. Meaning, that what is accessible is chronic this is what will be the strongest (frequent) & dominant. Meaning when we encounter person X, these are the things that will come up & will direct our behavior & expectations. In the end, this will influence what we remember from the encounter.

Q. What is my relation w/ X?

A. My most accessible memories. Relations w/ others = what is the most accessible out of all the representations of others.

2 processes:

1. Bottom-up- What we described now, were isolated cases. They organize into representations. Some of them become accessible & influence a given situation.
2. Top-down- This is a process called schematic memory, info-processesing based on schemas. We interpret the event, understand it & store it in memory, based upon what was accessible during that event & not according to analysis of the situation itself. The dominant representation determines interpretation & representation of the new event. Then the new event will be stored in the same dominant representation. This dominant representation will become even more dominant & accessible. Then there will be another event & it will happen again. This is a sort of prophecy that fulfills itself. The more space a representation takes up & more dominant it becomes, the more it influences how I relate to events in reality. In addition, we will forget events that don’t fit these representations. We may also distort things in order to fit them into our dominant representation. The basic characteristic of schema- conservative, protecting its validity. Therefore as soon as the schema says that my relationship w/ X is good, it will be conserved as good, even if there are contradictions to this. Then, the schema doesn’t only become accessible, it becomes conscious. This is what creates attachment styles.

Attachment styles- the most accesible representations that take up space & realize themselves. They determine what we see from the self & what we expect from them, etc, & this is difficult to contradict.

-According to the cognitive system, what happens earlier will build the representation & make it dominant. Everything that follows will be categorized according to that same representation. Therefore the relation w/ X in the 1^st year has a great influence (things that happen in early childhood are important later). This is Bowlby’s cognitive answer to Freud. The difference is that w/ Bowlby there is a possiblity of updating the system. If there were only top-down processes, there would be no opportunity to change things. Bottom-up processes however, continue to be active & constantly influence.

-If contradictions to the schema are repeated, this will have an influence. Here contextual accessiblity is important, b/c contextual raises non-dominant things. This is how one changes schemas (if we don’t run away in the middle). This is also what happens in psychotherapy. The therapist helps the patient become aware of what’s going on w/ him & doesn’t let him run away. In a conscious way, we repeatedly bring up the contradictions to the schema.

03-25-03

Attachment styles/patterns/orientations- formation of individual differences to a relatively consistent pattern of relation to the other in crisis situations. A consistent pattern of system activation originating from past experiences w/ attachement figures.

-On one hand we have the case of optimal system activation, though there’s also system overactivation & underactivation. The attachment styles are expressed cognitively, behaviorally & emotionally to these patterns.

Attachment styles can be discussed on several different levels:

1. Totalitarian/General level (כוללני): Attachment, usually w/ those who are close to us.
2. Specific level: Attachment system w/ friends, parents, romantic relationship, etc.
3. More concrete level: My attachement w/ a specific person (mother, father, or partner, etc.).
4. Level of periods: Ex. Attachment w/ your mother during the Gulf War

Q. Most research that has been done on the subject of attachment in the last 30 years has dealt w/ attachment styles & less w/ working models & dynamics of the system. Why?

A.

1. One reason is that Bowlby’s writing we almost never find the term attachment styles, rather he discusses dymanics.
2. Also, discussing attachment styles is economising, though problem is that sometimes we forget the dymanics of the entire system. When we discuss attachment styles, we are referring to something that is w/in the person which is somewhat against Bowlby who focused on interactions b/w people. It is easier to study a person’s attachment style than to study interactions.
3. A third reason is research politics. Ainsworth brought the subject of attachment into American psychology & didn’t discuss dynamics, rather discussed attachment styles. Therefore that is what is known in the US. If we only focus on attachment styles, we are likely to stick to this only & to foget all of the dynamics behind it. Attachment styles are important, but only need to be focused on to a certain degree.

Strange Situation (Ainsworth): 1^st attempt to define attachment styles. 9 month-old baby (w/ cognitive ability to differentiate b/w attachment figure & a stranger) is supposed to show separation anxiety & stranger anxiety, b/c in both cases there is a situation that distances him from his attachment figure. Ainsworth could have actually used anything that scared the child (Bowlby discussed natural signs of crisis & only later did he add separation, etc.). In the lab they studied the child’s reaction to different situations. Things observed:

1. How the child plays w/ the mother.
2. How he reacts when she leaves the room (separation).
3. How baby reacts when she comes back to the room.
4. How reacts when a stranger comes in w/ the mother.
5. How reacts when stranger enters w/o the mother.

Ainsworth categorized the types into 3, A, B & C:

1. Avoidant (חרד נמנע): Underactivation of the system. Child is attached to the mother. When separated he’ll protest & then he’ll calm down as type B. The difference is in the reception of the mother. Secure child will approach the mother, however the avoidant child actively avoids approaching the mother. Either he doesn’t initiate, or he shows signs of pulling back when the mother tries to approach the child. The child keeps distance, or in other words, the system in underactivate. Does this show lack of attachment? No. There is attachment, however the balance b/w distance & approach leans towards distance.

2. Secure type: Optimal operation of the system. Seeking closeness or soothing & ability to free himself from attachment figure. There is a feeling of security that enables them to put up w/ a crisis even when the attachment figure isn’t accessible. These children show protest during separation from the mother, however gradually, the child calms down & can continue playing. As soon as the mother comes back, they crawl over to her to express happiness, etc. Then he continues playing & doesn’t stay stuck to the mother. There is ability to be flexible when it comes to separation & sticking w/ mother. When the stranger comes in, he will approach the mother & will begin exploring who the stranger is. Then he’ll go play (there are differences b/w the children, but this description is a prototype, what’s important is the ability to calm down & to continue playing).

3. Anxious-ambivalent type: Overactivation of the system. Here, the child lacks security/confidence (ביטחון) w/ the mother. When the mother leaves, the baby cries & protests & has a hard time calming down. When the mother comes back, there are very intense reactions. On one hand, we see approach/nearing, but if you look at the child’s face we don’t see calming & happiness, rather we see anger. He’ll hug the mother & hit her. On one hand there’s closeness & on the other hand there’s anger & frustration. Lack of security is expressed in the inability to distance himself from the mother & go play when she comes back. This means that though angry, he still stays stuck to the mother. There is no calming & there’s overactivation of the system. When the stranger comes in, he sticks to the mother.

4. Disorganized type: Those babies who Ainsworth couldn’t categorize. Ainsworth’s students Main & Lynons-Ruth claimed that these uncategorized babies belonged to type D. Type D apparently expresses failure of both strategies, of underactivation & overactivation. Therefore, the child has disorganized/confused relation to the mother. Lyons-Ruth observed the mother’s reactions & saw that this happened mainly when the mother showed tough facial expressions. Children like this had usually suffered physical or emotional abused by the mother.

Type B: 50-60%

Type A: 20-30%

Type C: 16-20%

Type D: Minority group of babies.

-In adolesence one can’t use the strange situation to research. The experiment in the 70’s & 80’s only focused on development, but Bowlby claimed that the attachment system worked from the “cradle to the grave”.

Q. How can one study typical patterns of the system in the adult?

A. 2 main, very different approaches:

1. Main’s Approach: Developped out of Ainsworth (1984-1985): *Claimed attachment system is active all our lives. The same internal representations that serve as the foundation of attachment type, are founded in the 1^st year. These patterns will be consistent throughout life & will be generalized in all sorts of new relationships. Meaning, according to Main, to check a 20-year old, we need to check the degree of security he had w/ his mother during childhood by asking him of his memories (representations) from childhood w/ the mother. *An additional assumption is that these representations don’t have to be conscious. Therefore, method of checking attachment style has to detour the conscious. It can’t be founded on person’s self-report, b/c he’s not aware of his representation. We can’t observe either, b/c this is an adult. Thererfore, we interview the person & ask for examples. There are both semantic & narrative aspects involved here. According to analysis of the interview by trained experts (trained by Main), the adult’s attachment type is determined.
2. Approach Developped out Social & Personality Psychology (Hazan & Shaver, 1987): Both focus & method are different here. *Simiarities to Main: Attachment is consistent throughout life & the attachment style represents the person’s internal representations. *The pattern is influenced by the relationship w/ the mother, the person’s history & his other relationships. Therefore, in order to study the adult’s attachment style, we need to study the current representations of his attachment figure. What was in childhood isn’t important, but rather here & now. It can be influenced from childhood, but we’re checking what the relationship is today w/ the figure. *As for the method, it’s true there are unconscious representations, however a large part are conscious, therefore there is no need for an interview that checks what’s unconscious. One can ask subject for a self-report & ask him questions like, “I don’t have a problem sharing my feelings w/ others.”

-Main relates to attachment research using her method only. Hazan & Shaver’s social-personality approach allow us to research attachment in several ways, b/c the main point is finding the representations. Their approach is much more flexible.

04-01-03

-When Main wanted to study attachment in adulthood, she wanted to reconstruct Ainsworth’s model as much as possible, but Ainsworth’s model isn’t suitable for the adult. Therefore she decided to do an interview w/ “judges” or experts (instead of observation) who would determine the attachment type called AAI (Adult Attachment Interviews).

-In the social-personality model, they mostly use self-report questionnaires. The criticism on self reports is that there’s social desirability & awareness- if the person isn’t conscious of evertything happening to him inside how will he answer the questionnaire correctly? This approach states that all the items in the questionnaire require minimum self-awareness & that everybody has knowledge about themselves in different situations.

-Main’s approach claims that the person’s representations, his working models, aren’t always conscious, especially w/ avoidant types, since they try to create distance. The avoidant won’t say he’s worried he’ll be abandonned even if this is what really exists in his unconscious. This approach says that it is necessary to do an interview to arrive at the unconscious content, however, this claim isn’t entirely correct, b/c even in an interview the person is conscious & won’t mention unconscious things.

-Questionnaires are like a thermometer. Theromometer doesn’t indicate what processes are going on in the body, it only gives an indication of the general body temperature. On the questionnaire itself there is an indication that in ceratin situations the person reacts w/ avoidance for example, but the questionnaire doesn’t contain the processes. Questionnaires are a good “thermometer,” but we don’t use questionnqires in order to do clinical assessment, rather we use them to get some indication.

-According to Main, when building an assessment tool, we need to make sure the instrument will contain all the info- through which we are supposed to see all of the processes. Ex. If a indicator of avoidance is are memory problems, we need to discovet this in the interview itself, in the tool itself. If we use the questionnaire, we get indication that person avoidant, but not beyond that.

Q. What is the compatibility b/w these 2 approaches? If they both check attachment, there should be some correlation b/w them.

Correlation b/w Interviews & Questionnaires:

• If we use Main’s idea (according to the protocall) & compare it to the categorizations we get from questionnaires, there is zero connection. It seems they aren’t checking the same thing, why? Main’s method asks about childhood & not about current relationships. If we take Main’s method & ask about current relationships, there is much more of a connection (not entirely though).

• In the categorization process of the interview, there are intermediate levels before arriving at the final categorization of anxious, avoidant or secure. If we compare the results of the questionnaire during the intermediate steps, then we do find a connection.

• As soon as we remove the context of the interview, & focus only on one thing, (ex. Mother’s traits during our childhood), a gap is created b/w the semantic level & narrative level when the attachment is avoidant. We ask the person to name 5 characteristics of the mother & 5 stories connected to each characterisic. Then have the judges assess if the stories actually fit the characteristics & how positive they were. If we then check the connection to the questionnaires, we find the correlation is greater than if we had compared the questionnaire to the interview.

-Therefore we can see there is a somewhat of a correlation b/w research methods. This means that questionnaires which are cheaper than the interview are also a credibile research method.

-In 1987 Hazan & Shaver were the first to develop a self report of attachment. They took Ainsworth’s definitions & translated them to how they should be expressed in adult romantic relationships. They came up w/ 3 descriptions of prototypes of each type:

1. Secure person: Ability & willingness to create close relationships in which there is warmth, closness & dependency. Lack of concern regarding partner’s intentions in the relationship. Belief that the partner will be accessible & available .
2. Anxious person: 2 elements of hyperactivation: (1) Great desire for connection & closeness (2) Fears & concerns that there won’t be that connection & closeness
3. Avoidant person: Descriptions that indicate system deactivation, such as “I don’t like it when people get close to me,” “I don’t need a relationship,” etc.

-Their questionnaire was published in the papers. People sent the questionnaires back to them. The people were asked to mark the most appropriate description of their romantic relations (forced choice, b/c they could only choose one of the options they offered). Results were very similar to Ainsworth’s percentages for babies:

Secure: 60%

Avoidant: 20-30%

Anxious: 20%

-They also found connection b/w their categorization & people’s perceptions of their own mother’s traits, etc (on other questionnaires they had). This caused a big breakthrough.

Criticism of this forced choice method questionnaire:

1. Criticism regarding avoidants, according to the questionnaire. The avoidant person will idealize their connection to parents, etc, meaning they will present themselves as secure in their relationships w/ their parents. The answer to this criticism is that the subject asked to characterize himself- & the avoidant trait is actually accurate- so he feels. Q. How could an avodiant type report himself as avoidant? A. Because in the questionnaire the avoidant type wasn’t connected to something negative. The person was only asked to categorize himself.
2. Secure people may have labled themselves as avoidant or anxious!
3. There could have been people who weren’t secure, but wrote themsevles down as secure.
4. There could be people who show both avoidant & anxious characteristics (actually the 4^th type).

In order to overcome the criticism, new questionnaires were developped:

1. Ex. They took the above 3 descriptions & added a ladder for each description. They asked the person to rate himself on each trait.
2. Another method (developped in Israel). Division of each description into 5 sentences. The person on rates himself on each sentence. This makes up a questionnaire of 15 questions on which the person does 15 ratings instead of 3 & this tells you, you really got to the point. Then it’s possible to do “factor analysis” & to find if the content really does have 3 principle factors (the 3 types described by Shaver).

-In the end there were 3 scores- security, anxiety & avoidance. We arrive at categorization by choosing the highest score. Though they found very high correlation b/w this method & the old one, in certain subgroups, there was always discordance:

1. There were people who marked themselves as secure, but received a high avoidance score.
2. There were people who received a high anxiety score who were categorizeed as avoidant.

-Therefore, they took the scores w/o discussing categorization & instead discussed “degree of” anxiety, security or avoidance. Then there is surplus, 2 scores overlapping to a certain degree. This means there is a high correlation b/w them & we don’t know what belongs to what. High surplus is an indication of a problem w/ the tool or problem w/ our treatment of the tool. There is supposed to be a negative correlation b/w security & anxiety, so why do we need to check both of them?

Froley & Weller: Did a taxonomic (categorical) analysis of the questionnaire. Q. Is it possible to arrive at categorizing people according to their rating? A. Their conclusion was that categorization into prototypes wasn’t appropriate, rather discussing “degree of anxiety,” etc. was better. It is preferable to keep a successive rating for each description.

Brennan, Clark & Shaver: They took all of the questionnaires that checked self-report of attachment. They had about 600 items total. They took a large sample (4,000-5,000 subjects) & did a factor-analysis (groups of items w/ the most surplus). They checked the nature of the solution. Description of factor one, two, etc. They found the description of the 2 most correlated factors of the attachment questionnaires, anxiety factor & avoidance factor. In addition they found that the connection b/w the anxiety & avoidance factor was close to 0. Meaning they are 2 factors w/ no surplus- ortoginal- each factor checks something else.

High

Low High

Anxiety

Low Avoidance

-We can situate a person on this graph. Ex. A person got a score of 4 on anxiety & 4 on avoidance, then there are areas & here the 4^th type, fearful is expressed:

Avoidant Fearful

Secure Anxious

-They took the 600 items, chose 18 that contributed most to the anxiety & 18 that contributed most to to avoidance & created a questionnaire. This is the questionnaire we have. The odd items check avoidance & the even items check anxiety. They take the average (after turning (היפוך) the scales) & this is how they get the anxiety & avoidance scores.

-Usually the correlation b/w anxious & avoidant is 0, except for in the secure group, anxiety & avoidance are low & very --- - they are both high.

04-08-03

-The model on the handout is an episodical model, however it’s also supposed to show chronic things (working models we carry w/ us). The model represents both conscious & unconscious things. The flow of events is done in a way that doesn’t require conscious or control, it can be done automatically. In addition, each of these components & the flow can become conscious.

The model includes 3 principal parts (3 modules):

1. The 1^st module is responsible for system operation. The component asks when the attachment system is activated & what its implications are.
2. The 2^nd module is responsible for development, foundation & activation of strategies connected to security & attachment. This component differentiates b/w people/situations in which there is a feeling of security & people/situations in which there isn’t a feeling of security.
3. The 3^rd module mostly focuses on cases in which there isn’t attachment, & answers the question of what differentiates b/w the overactivation & deactivation strategies & also what the implications of the strategy are.

Negotiation w/ the environment:

Module 1: Attachment system is activated

Module 2: Security No security

Module 3: Overactivation Underactivation

Building & breakening cycle (see handout):

• Whoever is always in this cycle is the secure type.
• Whoever is always in overactivation is the anxious type.
• Whoever is always in underactivation is the avoidant type.

-When we look at the repeating channels, we can see the chronic aspect in the module, because the repeating channels determine & influence our behavior, it shows the chronic aspect.

-However, each intersection is supposed to be external arrows that can stop the loop, then despite the fact that we have a dominant situation of anxiety & overactivation, the system can function in the a given situation in a direction of security. We need to understand what is dominant w/ the person, but also to understand the hints that exist in the situation, that can deceive the tracks in other directions, this is what allows system’s flexibilty & what allows change.

Emperical examination of the module (assumptions, etc.):

First module: If a threat is perceived by the system (perceived by the person), the system is activated. Though threat activates the system for everybody, activation intensity & duration will be dependant on person’s individual differences & the same for the system’s results.

Threat perceived System activation Results of system activation

Threat perceived: Arousal of things in memory that are connected to the danger & threat. Meaning the attachment system can be activated from traumatic, big situations.

-The threat doesn’t have to be connected to attachment. There are 2 types of threat:

1. Threat connected to attachment: Separation, rejection, etc.
2. Threat not connected to attachment: work, danger, etc.

Q. For babies, seeking closeness is simple, it is something active, the baby runs to the mother. What happens in adulthood since we’ve developped independence?

A. Seeking closeness doesn’t have to be something obvious & visible, though it can be. Seeking closeness doesn’t have to be towards actual figures, rather they can also be towards internalized figures. Ex. Widows in crisis often turns towards their deceased husband- it is also possible to turn towards symbolic attachment figures such as G-d.

-Meaning that system activation is firstly cognitive & can, but doesn’t have to move to the behavioral plane. The cognitive level can be either conscious or unconscious (b/c there’s associative activation). System activation can also bring directly to self representations.

-In the encounter w/ the attachment figure, we study about ourselves. Associatively, in the memory system, a connection b/w representations of attachment figures & self representations is created. Then we can discuss areas w/in the self that are full of attachment- parts of the system. Then as soon as the attachment system is activated, these representations are activated. Meaning that if the attachment figure is supportive & accessible, then the same parts that are connected to the self will be “painted” in security & vice-versa. If the person’s dominant encounter is w/ unaccessible figures, the person’s self-representations will be those of a weak person, who lacks confidence & protection, & who is rejected, etc . This what will happen during threat & then there will be overactivation of the system (same regarding avoidance & deactivation).

[The self-representations, what brings the person to independence & not being dependent].

-The expressions of the attachment system can be on all sorts of levels (cognitive, etc.) & don’t have to be visible.

04-29-03

Attachment model, contd.

Goal of system activation: Attaining protection & feeling of security, calming, so even if the most minimal action attains this, system operation will stop. Only if security isn’t attained does it continue working. The system is economical in that it seeks the shortest most automatic way to attain its goal.

System activation: Activation/accessibility of representations connected to attachment figures or closeness/security.

Cognitive representation: This doesn’t require awareness, so this doesn’t require cognitive resources, which is why we can deal w/ other things & there’s no disturbance during activation. Ex. If we’re stressed before an exam & the system is activated, we have representations of calming figures which causes the anxiety to decrease. This allows us to take the test w/o system activation interfering & on the contrary w/ system activation calming! This allows us to deal w/ new/unfamiliar things as well. If system activation doesn’t have a calming effect on us, b/c our attachment figure representations aren’t soothing, system activation will not be effective & will only increase tension & anxiety. This will then lead to conscious feelings of seeking closeness or attachment figures.

1. System activation

2. Accessibility of representations of attachment figures or closeness/security

3. Conscious thoughts of seeking closeness/attachment figures

4. Could lead to seeking closeness/support

Conscious vs. Unconscious: The more severe the crisis, the more consciously activated the system will be. When dealing w/ day to day minor stressors, the system works more on the unconscious level. This depends on the context & the attachment styles the person has in the working models. W/ someone having a dominant avoidance strategy, there’ll be activation followed by disconnection/cutting off in one of the next stages. Therefore it’s likely he’ll display conscious thoughts/behaviors of seeking attachment figures. On the other hand, a person w/ a tendency to hyperactivation (where the system is activated at a high intensity), where this doesn’t succeed in calming him, will feel more anxiety.

Q.Can the disconnection take place already w/ activation of the system?

Q. Will an anxious person seek closeness since this isn’t effective for him?

(We see the issue is much more complex than Ainsworth’s experiment w/ babies.)

-It’s impossible to check system activation/operation based on behavior. There could be a situation in which the system is activated w/ no behavior of seeking closeness. Meaning, w/ avoidants there’s no activation of seeking closeness, though this doesn’t prove that the system isn’t active. It could be active, but there could be a disconnection in one of the stages before behavior.

Experiments:

1. Mikulincer, Birnbaum, Nachmiasm Woddis (2000)
2. Mikulincer, Gillath & Shaver (2002)
3. Mikulincer & Shaver (in press)

Experiments 1 & 2 (psychology students), similar paradigms:

Procedure: 2 sessions:

1. Attachment style questionnaire: Provides info on their degree of anxiety & avoidance.
2. Cognitive task:

Lexical decision: Subject is presented w/ a letter sequence & needs to determine if it’s a word or not. Faster reaction time = greater access to the thoughts connected to the word. This is related to the semantic priming technique. Trial procedure (100-150 trials):

1. W/ each trial the subject is given a sign the experiment is starting.
2. Priming stimulus appears for 20 milliseconds. 2 types of priming stimuli: Neutral (ex. hat) & the other danger/threat (ex. failed, sickness, separation).
3. Masking stimulus for about 30 milliseconds
4. Letter sequence, w/ a different letter sequence each time
• Not word
• Neutral word
• Word related to closeness (ex. love, caress)
• Word related to distance (ex. separation, rejection)
• Word w/ positive meaning (ex. intelligence)
• Words w/ negative meaning
5. Reaction: “it’s a word” or “it’s not a word”.

Stroop task: Present the subject words in certain colors. Subject’s task is to name the color the word is written in w/o reading the word or paying attention to word content. They need to inhibit relation to the semantics of the word & relate only to the color. If it says the word, “red” in green, it takes longer to say the color, b/c the word content interferes. There will be a stroop disturbance when there is priming (הטרמה) w/ the person for the word content.

• Lexical decision task: Less reaction time = more accessibility
• Stroop: More reaction time = more accessiblity

-It seems that when performing the above tasks, the subject doesn’t need to be aware of the word that was primed. The word can appear for such a short instant that we don’t consciously recognize. Even when the priming stimulus was unconscious, it still caused a disturbance effect on the person. This means accessiblity is important, not awareness.

Lexical decision experiment (2000) results:

-They found that the type of primer only had an effect on words related to closeness. When the priming word, “failed” appeared, it took the subjects less time to react to words related to closeness than when the priming word “hat” appeared. Meaning there is an associative connection b/w stimuli that pose a threat, such as “failed” & thoughts connected to closeness (unconsciously). This proves the connection b/w system activation & accessibility of representations related to attachment figures.

Experiment (2002):

1. Instead of using word categories, they used categories of people’s names that varied from subject to subject. Before the cognitive task, each subject was asked to give names of people on 3 questionnaires:
1. Who-to questionnaire: “Whom do you turn to when…?” Who plays the attachment roles for you.
2. Demographic questionnaire: Parents’, grandparents, cousins, friends, partner’s names.
3. List of 100 names: Need to mark if you know someone w/ this name.

-Based on these questionnaires, we have 1-6 names of subject’s attachment figures, names of people he knows, names of people he doesn’t know & neutral names. The computer then chooses 4 categories of names for each subject:

1. Names of his attachment figures
2. Names of people who are close, but who aren’t attachment figures
3. Names of people he doesn’t know

4. Unfamiliar names

2. Lexical decision task: They then perform this task, while there is very quick, unconscious priming of either the word, “failed” or “hat”.

3. Results: Regarding reaction time on attachment figures, it was much faster than after a priming w/ the word, “failed” than w/ the word “hat”. As for the other categories, there wasn’t a difference. Attachment figures are connected to the word “failed”, b/c the person turns to them in time of crisis & thus the association was created.

The experiment using stroop in place of lexical decision:

Results: After priming w/ “failed”, it takes much longer to react and name the color of the name of a person who’s an attachment figure, than naming the color of some other name.

Q. Why does this happen?

A. B/c an attachment figure is whom I turn to in time of crisis.

Individual differences:

Q. How do anxious & avoidants react?

A. When dealing w/ words of closeness, both those high & low on avoidance react in the same way. Meaning, when we prime w/ the word, “failed”, both those low & high on avoidance react faster on words of closeness (2000). This is surprising. It means the system is also active in avoidants. This was also the case regarding names of attachment figures (2002).

Anxious people: On words of closeness & names of attachment figures, reaction time is faster as well after the words “failed” & “hat”. Meaning, the accessibility of the words related to closeness & accessibility of attachment figures, exists after the word, “failed” as well & after the word, “hat”. This hints that w/ anxious people, system activation is chronic whether the stimulus is neutral or a crisis stimulus. (It could be that being in an experiment stresses him out causing him to react this way.) In addition accessiblity to words connected to separation & abandonment was also high. This is the content that occupies the anxious person, whereas w/ neutral words accesibility is high w/ both types of primers. W/ anxious people it happens at the same time, in every situation (in situation of threat or a neutral situation) w/ content connected to closeness & attachment as well as w/ content connected to separation, disconnection, etc. causing the confusion & ambivalence that characterize it.

Q. What happens w/ the avoidant subjects in the 2000 paradigm w/ words connected to distance category? Why isn’t there a difference there? Why doesn’t distance cause the words to be more accessible?

A. B/c there is repression of everything connected to threat & distance, there isn’t a conscious association of words connected to distance or the primer “death” for example. This is b/c there is a disconnection of the association. In order to inhibit something, a person needs resources. If we distract him, causing him to invest his resources in something else, there’ll be a decrease in inhibition. When the person is distracted & less occupied w/ repression, accessibility to the threatening content goes up. Therefore, instead of the normal procedure, subjects were asked to remember numbers during lexical decision task, while presented w/ words connected to distance. Subjects low on avoidance didn’t show a difference, whereas those high on avoidance showed slower reaction time when presented a threatening primer. This is similar to the way the anxious people reacted. When they switch “failed” or “death” w/ the primer, “separation”, accessibility w/ all of the subjects goes up- for words that are connected to distance or attachment figures- goes up, except for w/ the avoidants who have a disconnection.

05-13-03

Conclusion on activation research done using the lexical decision task & stroop task, by crisis stimuli w/ the adult: Unconsciously & automatically, symbolic crisis hints activate representations connected to attachment figures or other subjects in attachment.

At the end of the chapter (bibliography) there’s a question:

Q. How is it that in time of crisis w/ the adult (especially the adult who has attainted a feeling of security) internal representations are aroused, apparently dependency, & that on the other hand the secure person, has high self value, feeling of competence- autonomic & independent. Hw is it the that there is dependency & independence in the same person?

Crisis Seeks Support/ Sense of Positive Representation Self

Closeness Security of the Object (other) Representation

-Due to the sense of security attained, the person will turn for support the next time there’s a crisis- dependency. Turning to the person is enough to attain a feeling of security. They don’t need to seek external support (behavioral), b/c it’s enough to activate the internal representations. This explains the independence attained (representations are activated automatically).

Research: The word “failed” was a symbolic hint of crisis, but it didn’t cause people to run to seek a crisis. Instead it activated representations of the object & the raised preparedness of the representations to go into action. If the crisis had continued it may have caused actual seeking out. This is the 1^st step of being released from the other & the ability to look at the other not only as someone who’s supposed to fulfill our needs. When we don’t turn to the other, we need the other’s help, which is what happens w/ anxious people. Anxious people have a feeling of need & don’t have positive representations. In crises they’ll feel the need for the actual other (not the representation). This makes them very dependent.

The next step in research thinking: Security still doesn’t release us entirely from the object, b/c we’re still dependent on the internal object. Release from the object is very important, b/c only then will we be able to look at is as a subject who experiences pain & faces crises as well. Then we can see ourselves as equals. However, when we don’t release ourselves from the object & always need it, we view the person as a partial object (אובייקט חלקי) whose sole purpose is to satisfy our needs (we’re very egotistical & can’t be emphatic towards him). The passage from object-object to subject-subject relations is very important.

Q. What happens to the self representation?

A. When a person feels secure has positive representations of the other, he’ll also have positive self representations. There’s a tight relationship b/w the representation of the other & the self. According to Bowlby our self-development is constructed through interactions w/ the other. We make conclusions about ourselves based on this encounter. The self is firstly social & interactional. The person knows himself (especially as a child) through the feedback he gets from the other. The child learns about his ability to recruit his mother, the ability to activate the other, leading to a feeling of self-efficacy. He feels he’s able to cause changes in the environment & in the self. This gives him a feeling of potency & strength. In attaining security, the child attains the first buds of self-esteem/self-efficacy & a feeling of control over the environment. He sees that his reactions get positive feedback.

-Along w/ the development of positive representations of the other, positive self representations develop as well. The secure person doesn’t immediately or actually need the other, b/c there are positive representations of the other w/in him. However, he also understands that he has positive representations of the self, which lessens the need for representations of the other.

Testing how these representations were created: Self representations in prototypical situations of communication: A crisis situation involving 2 people:

1. Individual
2. Other

Actual level (what happens in reality) in optimal situation of attaining security: Stages:

Calms, supports

Stage 1: O (other) P (individual)

Turns for help

Internalization of Encounter

Stage 2: Represenation Self representation

of other

Bowlby: An internalization of the encounter is created in every case of interaction.

Self representation: How did I behave in the specific interaction?

Representation of the other: Who’s the other & how did he behave in the specific interaction?

• Self representation will be called: “Self representation in interaction w/ the attachment figure.” This is b/c I have many self representations (when I study, when I’m w/ my partner, a friend, etc.)
• Representation of the other will be called: “Representation of the attachment figure”.

Stage 3: Incorporating specific representations into circle of representations. The specific representations are added to an entire system of already-existing representations. (see drawing)

-The representation of specific attachment figure is turned into part of the self representation in the identification process. The representation of the attachment figure becomes part of the self as well. This explains why the secure person is emphatic & capable of being a caregiver. Identifying w/ his own caregiver allows this.

-This creates 2 foci w/in the self representations:

1. How am I in interactions w/ caregiving figures?
2. How am I as a caregiver of the self? This is b/c I’ve internalized my caregiver’s figure & now I take care of myself.

Self representation: When we describe ourselves, we may use different sentences: I’m strong, I’m smart, I’m stupid, I’m a reject

Identification w/ the caregiver: I hate myself: His representation is contained w/in my self representation.

Bolass (psychoanalyst, Winicott’s student): Discusses our internal dialogues. There are sentences we say when we act upon ourselves, such as, “I hate myself,” “I have me & myself,” “Calm down,” “Take it easy.” We encourage ourselves & talk to ourselves. The dialogues are representations of identification w/ our attachment figures. When in crisis, we calm ourselves the same way the attachment figure we identified w/ calmed him/herself.

Last claim: These two foci are (associatively) reactivated in times of crisis as well as the way we feel w/ our attachment figure & the way we care for ourselves. W/ the adult, in a crisis, instead of the drama occurring b/w 2 people, or b/w the representation of the other & the self representation, it happens among the 2 foci w/in the self. The person has the means to manage on his own (w/in his self representation), independently, w/o dependency on the actual other or representation of the other. The drama all happens w/in the self representation.

Two experiments were done in order to prove the above:

1^st experiment: Subjects were asked to openly describe 3 things:

First meeting:

1. Attachment figure: Think of the person you turn to when you’re in a crisis, the person who calms you down, who is capable of & wants to calm you down. They were to focus on an attachment figure who radiates security. Then they had to list 10 self traits, as they are expressed when they weren’t w/ that person. In addition, the subject was asked to think of another 2 figures:
2. Exploring figure: Someone they enjoy studying/working w/. They then had to list 10 self traits as they are expressed when they weren’t w/ that person.
3. Friendship figure: A figure we enjoy having fun w/. Then listing 10 self traits when w/ them.

-For each figure, the subject was asked to list 10 traits (30 traits total). Some traits could be repeated, meaning, they didn’t have to be 30 different traits. Usually, the majority of all of the traits they get are positive. In addition, the subjects filled out an attachment questionnaire.

Second meeting in the lab: Subject was told he was going to perform a cognitive test, “categorization tests”. The subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups:

1. Failure
2. No feedback (control group)

-Afterwards, they were asked to fill out several questionnaires:

1. Self description questionnaire: They get a list of 50 traits they need to rate themselves on, how much each trait corresponds to them now.
2. Mood questionnaire
3. Cognitive disturbances questionnaire: “interfering thoughts”

Self-description questionnaire: The questionnaire was unique (idiosyncratic) for each subject. Content of the traits differed for each subject & included 4 different trait categories:

1. Unique self traits in the encounter w/ attachment figures that appeared in the attachment figure block (section) & not in the other 2 (friends & exploring).
2. Unique self traits in the encounter w/ the exploring figure.
3. Uniques self traits in the encounter w/ the friendship figure.
4. Traits taken from other people’s descriptions in the sample that didn’t appear in the 3 blocks of that specific experiment subject.

-3 categories of traits are those the person himself produced. Then they checked if there was a difference b/w the 2 groups (failure/no feedback) regarding the accuracy of the traits- how well they describe the self in the present:

• They found that w/ categories 2-4 there was no difference b/w the 2 groups.
• However, in the failure situation, the person rated the traits relating to attachment figures in a stronger way than compared to the neutral situation. Meaning, in a failure situation, the person activated the traits expressed at a much higher intesity when w/ the attachment figure. This indicates that he’s trying to calm himself down. In a case of crisis (failure) these traits become more intense. What happened above depends on the attachment style. Though each of us has a secure attachment figure, the question is how central they are in our lives when it comes to accessiblity of self representations. W/ secure people, these representations are more central. Meaning, the difference b/w the 2 groups is especially correct for those who are more secure in their attachment. People who are more secure in their attachment (low grade on anxiety & avoidance) have self-representations w/ secure figures.

Mood: In the case of failure, there is generally a worse mood, but they found a correllation b/w the accuracy of self-representations in the encounter w/ the attachment figure & mood & cognitive disturbances. After failure, the person described himself more in terms of his self-representation w/ the attachment figure, the less negative his mood was, & the fewer cognitive disturbances he had (negative correlation). The more the subject succeeded in bringing up self-representations, the calmer he was. It’s the self representation that calms the person down.

05-20-03

Attachment figure accessibility:

Is there a threat? System activation Is the attachment figure accessible?

Q. During system operation is the attachment figure perceived as accessible?
A. The system determines this automatically. What determines this is:

1. Reality: Does the attachment figure react, the context?
2. Work of the representations: transference (transfering person A’s traits to person B) & projection (the expectations) our attachment style. This is a significant stage, b/c if the system decides the attachment figure is accessible, the system will continue its normal course. If not, this is problematic.

-In order to understand how a person reacts in the attachment context, we must take into account internal representations as well the partner, the context they are in. Meaning theories of attachment are personality & intropsychic theories (things connected to the system). The theory emphazises the other- not everything happens w/in the system. In order to understand the person’s reactions, we must learn their expectations, etc. & even know what’s going on in the situation itself, how the other person reacts. This is what Bowlby discussed. In research the emphasis was always on attachment, but over the past few years, they started researching the interpersonal.

-A person w/ a positive attachment history has positive expectations when encountering an attachment figure. B/c they have positive representations, they’re more likely to perceive the other as accessible. They’ll interpret the other persons responses & behavior as a way of relating & as having intentions, as accessibility. People relay messages that can have more than one meaning, therefore the interpretation is so important. A person w/ the positive expectations will be less critical if the the other behaves in a negative/unexpected way. They will give it an external relation, such as “They were just tired.” A secure person will continue to succeed in defending his representations.

Collins (1996): Collins proves this in her research. When they put the person in a situation in which their partner showed negative behavior, the secure people explained the behavior in a much more convincingly than insecure people. Collins also checked the influence of reality. People were to give a speech. Some of them received a clear message of accessibility of the partner & others got an unclear message (meaning there was control of reality).

Results:

1. Secure: Perceived their partner as supportive no matter what message was relayed. Then they tested the quality of the speech.
2. Insecure: Didn’t always perceive their partners as supportive. In addition they found an interaction effect. When the message was unclear, there was a much greater a difference b/w the secure & insecure than when the message was clear. She found this for performance anxiety (emotions) & also regarding performance. Meaning, reality determined the perception, feelings & performance.

Experiment: Similarity & differentiation b/w the self & other: How different/similar to me do I perceive the other as being? Secure people were more or less compatible w/ the reality of the other, while insecure people had more projections & mistakes. Despite the fact that secure people tend to project their positive expectations, they are realistic enough. The insecure person’s internal world is projected onto the other & reality’s place is weaker. Lack of differentiation hints at the other’s similarity. Similarity = together, different = separation. Difference is a certain separation. The overactivation strategy that constantly seeks closeness, is actually against the idea of difference & separation. In order to continue seeking closeness, there needs to be a cognitive justification that the other is similar to me. On the other hand, the distancing strategy must constantly seek out the difference, b/c this allows distancing. If they find similarity it will be in opposition to the distancing.

-In the experiment they found that anxious people perceive more similarity to the other than avoidants.

Experiment: There were 2 sessions:

1. The subjects filled out a self-description trait questionnaire.
2. The subject came in for an experiment (thinking he was participating in some other experiment). They told him there was another experiment subject there (actually an experimentor) & that the goal of the experiment was to do something together. 1^st stage: Subject & the experimentor watch a movie together. One group watched a violent documentary & the other group watched a neutral documentary. 2^nd stage: They discuss the movie.
3. Before they begin the discussion, they were to get to know each other. Each subject was to give 5 traits that describe them. The experimentor/subject always began. Scenario 1: 4/5 traits the experimentor gave were similar to the subject’s (from 1^st session), meaning the experiementor was similar to the subject. Scenario 2: Experimentor/subject only gave about 1 similar trait out of the 5, meaning he was different from the subject.
4. Then the subject listed his traits & then they discussed the film. The experimentor/subject was supposed to be passive when discussing the film.
5. Later the experimentor/subject left & the subject was supposed to fill out 2 questionnaires. He was given a list of traits & he was asked to say whether they described him or not. Each subject was given an individualized questionnaire w/ some traits being ones that appeared on questionnaire he filled out before the experiment & others that hadn’t appeared. There were 4 categories: 1) Traits that only describe me 2) Traits that describe both him & the experimentor/subject. 3) Traits that weren’t in the subject’s description, but that were included in the experimentor/subject’s description. 4) Traits that don’t describe either the subject or experimentor/subject.
6. The subject was asked to remember the traits that the experimentor/subject used to describe himself.

Results:

Avoidants: After watching a movie that aroused a crisis, they found that when the experimentor/subject described himself as similar to the subject, the subject rejected traits that were similar to those of the experimentor/subject in his final self-description. The avoidant created a new difference/gap b/w them in order to get back his uniqueness. This tendency didn’t exist when the experimentor/subject wasn’t similar to him. In addition, the subject tended to forget the traits of the experimentor/subject when he was similar to him & they saw the violent film. When they weren’t similar, he remembered the experimentor/subject’s traits better.

Anxious: Everything was opposite. When the experimentor/subject described himself as different after the violent movie, the subject took on his traits. Meaning, he made himself similar to the experimentor/subject & changed his self-perception. (Regarding memory there was no effect of remembering or forgetting).

-Both the avoidants & the anxious maintained the 1^st situation. The avoidant wants difference & attains this when there is similarity. The anxious wants similarity & attains this when there’s a difference. (Nothing happens w/ the secure individuals).

Diary research: Method of research that allows us to track both personality & reality. Before each subject started their diaries, answered all sorts of questionnaires including attachment questionnaires. Then they began a diary of at least 3 weeks. At the end of every day they answered questions about things that happened the same day. The questions they answered were questions regarding their feelings towards their partners, their partners’ behavior (positive, negative) & their own behavior.

Ex. A woman: We’ll check her positive feelings towards her partner as a function of:

1. Her attachment style: something that doesn’t change
2. The partner’s supportive behavior (from her & her partner’s questionnaires). It’s possible to add all of the behaviors together & make a graph (this is a variable that changes). (See graph)

-They found that anxious & avoidant women felt less positive feelings towards their partner (influence of their attachment style). In addition they found that on the days their partner was more supportive, they felt better (reality).

Interaction b/w attachment style & reality:

+ISD: Women high on anxiety

–ISD: Women low on anxiety

-They found that w/ women who aren’t so anxious, both on days that their partners were supportive & on days they weren’t so supportive, they still had postive feelings towards him. On the other hand, anxious women were very sensitive to reality (they felt good on days when their partners behaved well & bad on days when their partners weren’t so good). Meaning reality plays a role w/ anxious women & not so much w/ women who aren’t anxious.

Avoidance graph:

Women high on

avoidance always

feel worse no

connection to reality.

05-27-03

Attachment styles:

1. Coping w/ stress
2. Managing negative feelings
3. Interpersonal behavior, relationships
4. Self perception
5. Perception of the other
6. Mental health
7. Connection w/ behavioral systems (exploring, friendship, sexuality, caregiving)

Coping w/ Stress: Seeking support, ability to self soothing, constructive means of dealing: Security leads us to seeking support in a functional way in order to calm down & continue.

Anxious: Less secure strategies such as hyperactivation (anxiety) lead to ineffective focused emotional coping (rumination), chewing the cud. The anxious person presents himself as miserable & unfortunate in order to draft the other. “If he doesn’t love me at least he’ll pity me.” They stay stuck in their pain, by always scratching his wound w/o solving anything.

Avoidant: The avoidant who uses deactivation, uses cognitive distancing (forgetting, not paying attention, etc.) or physical distancing (running away, not entering a situation). Just as he avoids his caregiving figure, he avoids any sign of crisis. He ignores the wound even when it’s infected. Usually the avoidance works, but when the stress becomes chronic & difficult, the avoidance tears the person apart.

Security allows the flexibility to seek the most effective coping strategy.

Ex. For mothers of children w/ heart problems (small babies), the secure mothers distanced themselves (though this usually appears among avoidants). The avoidant mothers were in a major crisis & focused on the emotion. When the problem was only minor, the secure mothers seeked out support & focused on the problem. Anxious mothers focused on emotions. Avoidant mothers distanced themselves. A year later, the avoidant mothers’ showed increased focus on emotion & the crisis. The anxious mothers actually showed a drop in focus on emotion & crisis.

Managing negative feelings/emotions: Internal coping w/ painful memories:

Avoidants: use distancing, repression, and cancellation. They don’t feel the memories. They use repressive mechanisms. It takes them the longest time to remember sad childhood memories. When they remember them, the feelings are of a regular/constant low intensity w/ no peaks.

Anxious person: Hyperactivation & intensity of feelings, so that their internal worlds of managing emotions is chaotic. They remember sad memories very quickly. When asking the person how they feel, they feel guilt, sadness, jealousy & anger. When they remember the anger, they are also very sad, etc. The sadness arouses all sorts of associations w/ one negative emotion activating all of the negative feelings. The cognitive system doesn’t always want to feel bad, therefore w/ the secure person, there are defining borders of the emotional situation so that the things won’t spread out in every direction. The anxious person lacks these defining borders. Everything automatically spreads out, maybe even strategically. The person exaggerates so that the other will pity him. Everything is bad.

Thought suppression phenomemon: When a person is asked not to think about a certain thought, it will appear later even more intensely, the rebound effect. As soon as we’ve repressed a thought, after it is released, it appears even more intensely.

Anxious: They seem to have the rebound effect.

Avoidants: Don’t have the rebound effect, especially not for the memory of separation. They just continue not thinking about it. Their avoidance ability is so profound that it prevents certain unwanted thoughts. In a regular situation this works, however, when in cognitive overload, these unwanted thoughts will come out.

Q. Is the repression (especially the avoidant’s) in the stage of encoding or retrieval?

Experiment: They read a horrible story & checked the forgetfulness curve. There were 2 options:

1. The memory is created, encoded & fades w/ time.

2. The encoding didn’t take place in an identical manner for those high & low on avoidance.

Findings: Possiblity #2: This means the Freudian model isn’t appropriate, b/c repression among the avoidants takes place during encoding. It isn’t that they just try not to remember during retrieval. This is what happened in the lab, but in reality it’s more complicated.

Self perception & perception of the other:

Anxious: They’ll emphasize how miserable they are & how hard it is for them, etc (to himself & to the other).

Avoidant: Exact opposite. Everything is fine w/ them. The avoidant has a tendency to perfectionism. Since they only trust themselves, they have to convince themselves & the other that they are flawless, otherwise they’re vulnerable.

-We can ask people what traits they desire for themselves. Then we can calculate the difference b/w what they are & what they want, the gap b/w the actual self & the desired self. Both the anxious & the avoidant seem to suffer from such a gap. This is surprising, b/c the avoidant’s actual self is pretty positive. On the other hand, he has very high expectations. This gap seems to be related to depression connected to self criticism & perfectionism. Their unrealistic aspirations are probably connected to their need to prove that they are the best, are flawless.

When we ask an avoidant how he would describe himself in a situation of failure, he describes himself more positively than in a normal situation. The anxious person will describe himself as more negative in a time of failure. Meaning, the avoidant “inflates” himself during crisis situations.

Feb 11/2003

Mark based on

• Test on biblio

àmostly class stuff, but also biblio

• small work

attachment: dealing w/ the other

Assignment:

Choose a person ànot close person

àonce a week, speak about stuff, and in the end, integrate everything and hand in the assignment

biblio:

-advances in experimental and social psychology:

• micolinzer/shaver chapter

-draft copy in the library

--

Question: why so much focus on attachment in a course?

Answer: because it now is regarded by almost all fields of psych

Bowlby: reaction to Freud

àcan give another dimension to the normal/abnormal personality study

Question: how do you use the attachment theory in therapy?

Answer: study personal relationships

Whenever, there is a relationship, attachment is relevant

I.e.. kohut: good enough mother = good enough manager

• Attachment to a group
• In-group attachment
• Out-group attachment

Attachment: regulates emotional state, at first by outside people, and then by internal representation

àthen it effects ‘coping-with-stress’ relations

Attachment also deals with emotional/social/cognitive[!] development.

Why is the theory of attachment not that popular:

1. in brought in the cognitive element (in a time when cognitive theorists are at a peak)

àchanged cognitive people’s approach – also internal mental representations, and not only cognitions about others

2. Attachment theory shows correlations with certain cortical/hormone activity

àBowlby: attachment is firstly biological/evolutionary

3. their effect on psychodynamics (even though initially, it is supposed to be a reaction to Freud)

àBowlby also spoke of conflicts/fantasy-reality issues/etc.

Until now: background àfrom now: real stuff

Definition:

Attachment:

1. a specific kind of interaction with the ‘other’

à‘other:’ could be symbolic or fantasized

2. the want to keep this proximity/relationships

àproximity could be: agreement/emotional/symbolic/physical

3. this proximity needs to be regulatory (emotional/self)

àattachment: when there is an internal/internal threat, where the other is used to support him in that threat, and allow him to continue to dev. and grow.

-Attachment only occurs when I need the other

àattachment is not when I am dependent on him for something (sex/homework/study/have fun together)

àonly attachment if and when There is some sort of threat that only the other can help me with

àfirst it is a defense: to help me self-regulate!!!!!!

Note:

-attachment does not need willfulness/cognition/consciousness

bowlby: attachment is foremost biological!!!! (evolutionary) àit is automatic!

The following is necessary but not sufficient to attachment

• communication style
• internal representation
• boundaries b/w me and the other
• interdependence with the ‘other’
• interaction style

emotional regulation =homeostasis, so that other systems could work (i.e. risk-taking/sensation seeking)

2^nd, important element of attachment:

-attachment is not the relationship with 1 person

àattachment is not w/ specific people and at certain point in life

-you can have episodes of attachment with people that are not attachment-like relationships in their prototypical state.

àattachment could be to many others: i.e. G-d/manager/self-help groups

-even in small talk [no attachment relationship] àattachment system could be influenced

àb/c in non-attachment interaction, expectations are internalized

àwhen attachment doesn’t function properly: you assume that the ‘other’ is bad

-primary family: cause the first schemes/relationship expectations

àbased on those expectations that I learnt at home, I know h.m. to rely on the other in times of need

Edward Dorfman: my partner

Behavioral system: kind of b/h that dev. intergenerationally in evolutionary way, that has a survival function. Achieves survival through those functional b/h

àspecies has many b/h. The question is what is the smallest b/h unit? Is it the whole actions until something is achieves, or is each motion in the series of actions a behavior by itself?

Answer: a unit of b/h is a series of actions to achieve 1 thing. ànot measured by physics

• reflex: automatic motorical action based on stimuli

à1 action to 1 stimuli

àimmidiate reaction

àSàR

ànot learnt

• fixed action pattern: reaction to stimuli, but not immediacy of reflex ài.e. cow w/ red towel ànot reflex, but many interrelated complex issues. The SàR is much more complex. (perception/motorical/etc…)

àyet not yet willful

ànot learnt

• set behavioral system: when speaking of mammals, there is much more involved

ài.e. 1 stimuli = many reactions

àlearnt/unlearnt

• 1 stimuli can have many reactions
• Many stimuli can have 1 reaction

R1

S₁ R2

R3

R4

R5

R6

R7

S₂ R8

R9

-certain reactions are

-Smells/pictures/diff. parts of body/sounds/thoughts can all illicit 1 reaction: sexual arousal

àdo we have 1 sexual reaction? No! when we kiss/hug/etc… it is also sexuality.

àmany reactions

main idea of behavioral systems: many reactions to many stimuli that all have 1 function

àno intention in etiology! It just developed so.

-so a reaction (i.e. a smile) = must study the contexts and then see in which systems of behavior the reaction of a smile is relevant

à(after all, a smile is part of many b/h systems, and you have to study the context to see the specific function of the smile w/I that situational context)

the main question is: what is the function of b/h X regardless of specific case: looks for cross-situational adjustment tools: i.e. reaction (S1) to nudity regardless of where you are.

-But nudity is not always a stimuli to sexual reaction in cases where it is ok to be nude (i.e. certain tribes in Africa = S2)

Etiology: the study of observed b/h in nature (not in a lab)

-Now, I have to define the function of the behavioral system:

behavioral system involved

• functions
• goal: every b/h system has a goal: how I solve a specific problem

-if the b/h system’s goal is to reproduce, then I would also want to maintain their well-being/health

• reactions: you have to define which are the reactions of the b/h systems
• cognitive component

-behavioral system is the commonality of peopleànot ind. diff.

Watson: (behaviorist) =I can do anything w/ a kid àno limits!!!

Behavioral system = not determinist, but rather delimiting the options that we have in order to survive. It limits what we can do (or learn), yet it doesn’t mean we can not decide what to do in life. ài.e. some things are harder to condition: biological limits

What is attachment behavioral systems???

• Goal: achieving security from threats by achieving proximity to people who can help you

ànot achieving proximity, but really security. Proximity is just a sub-goal

àwe’re egoistical: we want our security = not romance!!!

Sroufe: attachment’s function is to get felt security

Psychoanalytical: operant/classical conditioning: the kid gets positive reinforcement of reaction w/ mom. -->in is a learn reaction

Bowlby: it is innate reaction to seek proximity to primary caregiver.

-->not only proximity, but only proximity when is in stress (i.e. hungry/soiled pants/stranger/etc)

example

-8 mo = fear of stranger = even though it is not basic needs

-->comorbility w/ fear of leaving mom = shows the need to proximity

-->proximity for security

• Reactions of behavioral system of attachment

-->-every reaction to achieve proximity (not security)

-->could be symbolic proximity (i.e. closeness)

-Piaget: preoperational stage = symbolism

-->even unconscious!!!!!!!!!

-making an assumption that something is b/c of attachment is hard -->got to see the who situation

-->especially in negative cases, when child is angry: he will shout, but you have got to analyze it to see that he is really asked for security

-->sometimes, what appears to be anything but attachment, but rather a poor way of asking it.

Anger of hope: bowbly: we pass on to the other in the ‘relationship’ that we are unsatisfied in the relation and you got to fix it so that I will be calm -->sometimes anger/anxiety could be attachment

-in each culture = diff. ways of expressing this proximity

àin Japan: very distant proximity. In Latin America: very involved proximity

Question

What are the stimuli that activate the attachment system?

Answer:

Many stimuli can activate the system:

àstimuli that cause a sense of threat, which activate a need to security

-in ancient times: wild animals

bowbly: evolutionary warning signs: natural cues of danger

• Some natural cues
• Dark
• Disease
• Fatigue (b/c of overload)
• Startle sound/stimuli (especially babies)
• Any change in environment/internal that make us more vulnerable

-conditioning/leaning makes more stimuli associated as if they are natural cues if danger:

ài.e. failing a testàSE= low =>

-sociometric theory: less SE = b/c less popular: (not vise versa!)

àI belong less to significant group èthey’ll protect me less!

Terror management theory: (TMT)

Greenburg/Solomon/etc: SE is for avoidance of awareness of death:

à you are worthy (and then you won’t think of your vulnerability to death)

àless SE = more awareness of your vulnerability to death.

àmust deconstruct a stimuli to see h. it threatens us

Attachment system = doesn’t explain the lack of homeostasis (lack of security) but just how to return to homeostasis (security b/h)

àcould also be mental stimuli that returns the ind. to feeling of security

SE = more sig. In western/individualistic society

Anxiety = more free-floating

Fear = more awareness of stimuli

Behavioral system has:

• goals
• functions
• stimuli
• cognitive (in mammals) – according to bowlby

bowlby: we need a system valve to decide which behavior is best

àw/o cognitive, it would merely be goal-oriented b/h

problem space:

1. what is the issues
2. where do I want to go (goal)
3. steps I have to take (I must understand the ‘if-thens’) àprocedural knowledge

à ‘how’ àscripts

àif not, it would just be SàR (dominant response to threat)

àrun to mom even at age 30!!!

àthen, must rely on memory (representations) of:

• procedural: knowing the conditions
• declarative (i.e. who is this person/what makes her happy/what am I better at/etc…)

àgoal-corrected b/h: I can change the behaviors according to goal needs (even w/o awareness) ànut mere stimuli and response (though it could be automatic SàR as well)

main idea:

-we change b/h based on knowledge of what we want to achieve

-learning differences = ind. differences

àone sings to mom to calm her ands one yells at mom

àone even thinks that if he isn’t yelled at = no security of relationship

= all differences in learnt reactions of attachment

bowbly:

working models: cognitive base which we collect knowledge about how to modulate b/h to achieve the security

working

• knowledge which helps the system: a behavioral ‘mapping’
• never finished: always develops

2 processes

• top-down: very schematic/conservative/shourt-cut/fixed àhard to change (then the models wouldn’t change à ‘models,’ but not ‘working’)
• bottom up: the opposite: new knowledge: I listen to the stimuli and save it. More resources/analytical ‘working’

à1 side might be more dominant, but both are present!!!!

àw/ time, person might change his working model about a person, despite at first this model might get people into fights, b/c people apply their working models on others

• working models of the self: not self esteem but rather h. I appear to the other when I ask for help: am I strong enough to get his help/worthy/etc…
• working models of others: memories I have about others that are supposed to help know functions of security that this person can give me (àeach person has a working model of others)
• what gets him angry/calm/etc.
• working models of interaction: if this interaction has benefits or not? What are the best ways to seek help?

optimal: the caring figure helps me and loves me and is there for me when needed. I am able to seek his help! (thus I am worthy of it!) and it is worth it for me to have help

relationship w/ other systems

-attachment is not in a vacuum!!! It interacts w/ other systems!

-interactions: one system inhibits the other: no energy for sex/learning/sensation seeking/etc…:

à‘I NEED SECURITY NOW!!!!!!’

àthose systems come back to function when security is re-achieved

àattachment will bother the other systems if attachment is unsatisfied -(takes away energy)

àin every interaction, there is a working model: it is remembered

-when caregiver leaves = more attachment needs = more fear!!!

ànew action (i.e. kid explores) = always looks back to see mom

ànew autonomy in each exploration could create step backwards

-knowledge that other will help: helps explore/autonomy = I can even take 2 steps!

àmore ability to break homeostasis of security if I have a representation of a secure base: and thus deal w/ threats àsecure base could help re-activate other b/h systems

àwhen there is a threat: we return to initial secure base, and cease all other activity

until now:

-until now we spoke of universal elements of the system.

From now on: individual diff.

Optimal functioning of system

Onset stage

• Threatening stimuli
• Beginning of b/h system
• -->seeking proximity of security-giving figures

interaction stage

• -->proximity is achieved
• -->security is achieved
• --->end of b/h system

Inhibit other b/h systems re-activating of other systems

-if no organic/other problems = then the main problem might be in the interaction stage –in how we seek. Organic problems usually seen in onset.

-interaction might be the ind. diff.!!! -->h. we seek the proximity-->might be malfunctioning!

-->i.e. if mom is always fearful, then kid will not feel security despite his good attempts

Unsuccessful attachment episode: if following is not achieved:

• Proximity
• Security

-it is also imp. to study the episode of attachment (vs. general pattern of the ind.)

-->at this point, one has to deal w/ the failure of the attachment system:

• hyperactivation of the system: seeking in increased intensities/action (or diff. action( the proximity)

• you maintain the hope to seek the proximity, yet also maintain the risk of re-failing

• deactivation of the system: giving up the will to proximity: switch people

• you decrease hope, yet also decrease the chance of failing

-->i.e. finding other person/other systems [since the risk is still there]

-->deactivation is ceasing the b/h system w/o security and w/ the threat still there

-like fight-or-flight: you either take the risk or not

comparison to learnt helplessness:

learnt helplessness –seligman: when org. learns that he can not do anything regarding a certain stimuli (apathy regarding infl. environment) based on prior experience w/ failures to infl. environment

-->at first, seen an increased reactance: increased attempts to undo the obstacles. When finally, the organism assumes that he can’t do the action

-->but if at first, failure, but then success, there is an increased attempt at action (b/c the success started at the onset of the reactance stage)

-each failure episode builds up tension until breaking threshold

-->when high tension= more disorganization/passivity

-->it is more of giving up/ ‘yeush’ -->he just doesn’t know what to do

paradox: harder to give up if more resources given in to seek proximity (hyperactivation) -->cognitive dissonance?

-helplessenss will be achieved when the attachment figure is almost never there.

-->when deactivation is at security= good –if no security when deactivated – not good

question: what happens in equivalent episodes that some do hyperactivation and other do de-activation

-deactivation – helplessness: I am passive: I do not know what to do in this b/h system, perhaps I will seek other systems

what makes a person deactivate or not?

• context
• background
• history –(working models (based on previous episodes)
• temperamental elements –i.e. easiness to regulate emotions

Hyperactivity:

• Success: see!! It works!
• Failure: chaos: disorganization of actions based on overstimulation

Deactivation:

• Success: it works!!! (despite not being able to deal w/ the threatening situation)
• Failure: disorganization: you do not know what to do!

Ainsworth: the diff. is in the hope that one puts in system, based on experience: hyperactivation is b/c there is not enough failures/rejections to retry.

Until now, we spoke of the episode now we will speak of the general trend of attachment

Working models: representation of the interaction of each episode: self/other/interaction

-those primary episodes, b/f the working models occur build up the self

-->in those primary interactions [w/ main caregiver], there are some failures

-->we remember the interaction as well as its result, as well as if we did hyperactivity or deactivation during interaction(thus we remember which reaction style lead to which results)

[thus winnicot said: good enough mother]

diff. kinds of episodic memory in each situation adds up do diff. working models of diff. kinds of actions/reactions with similar reactions

Relationship w/ person X (as a scheme)

• interaction of success
• me
• other

• interaction of failure + hyperactivation
• me
• other

• interaction of failure +deactivation
• me
• other

-relationship w/ X colored w/ those episodic schematic memories

-->expectations are built (working models)

Imp: I will listen to person X in order to fortify those expectations

-->though in a less dominant way, I have expectations contrary to expectations

-->thus, small contextual cues can modulate the expectations

Mar-11/2003

Hyperactivation

Success

Threat

Deactivation

• Declarative: knowledge of self/other
• Procedural: ifs-then:

-One of the assumptions of cognitive psych as ‘saving’: efficiency in the saving

àtry to consolidate various episodes in order to create broadest schemes w/ smallest amount of info

àepisodic memory is too big, so it is narrowed to general idea.

-i.e. narrowed down to simple things, like:

• ‘kinds of episodes at day and kinds of episodes at night’
• what category of actions X will do àkiss/hug/yell/etc…

Neural network theory: no categorization àjust the strongest link!!!

Difference:

-There are some things extraneous to attachment system and some intrinsic:

• i.e. if hugging = tension èbad. If hugging = displays proximity ègood
• after all, the system wants to find out how the next interaction will look

àperhaps the categorization will be according to situational result:

i.e.

• proximity success
• proximity failure after hyper-activation
• proximity failure after deactivation

àthus, according to memory, kid will react according to his categorization (i.e. at night, dad is busy, so don’t go to him)

problem: when the kid does not see reasonable categorization

solution: makes a general working model of the Person and not the episodes

àbased on success/hyperactivation/deactivation

• availability: do I have a mental representation in storage somewhere?
• accessibility: does the internal representation infl. the interaction process? Are those representations in the pre-conscious? (an not in the unconscious memory)
• That does not mean that awareness is involved!!!! Could be unconscious accessibility!)

note

-accessibility fluctuates, so I will have diff. expectations (memories of success/hyper/deactivation), based on unconscious accessibility of expectations

2 types of ‘accessibility’

• Dispositional: everyone has factors that make some representations chronic
• Strengths: # of representations which that representation has (more episodes which support it = stronger! =chronic). Expectation makes the some episodes available but it won’t be accessible
• Cognitive system works by associations: the question is nor what the meaningfulness of the act it, but what it results in.
• Associations which that rep. has: dr. is associated w/ disease

• Contextual: just as imp.!!!!! the situational issues that come up that cause the less-dominant representations be accessible from the availability area of memory

àthrough priming, (i.e. picture of disaster/specific conditioned sounds), diff. expectations might be brought into the accessibility

hierarchy

-episodesàorganization of success/hyperactions àabstract rep. of relationship w/ X

àthis hierarchy has both a bottom-up and a top-down element

Imp!

Attachment style is those internal rep. that dominate our interactions: views/expectations of others

Thus: what happens earlier (i.e. 1^st yr.) = most imp: since they start the representationàthey start the expectations

Updating: the schemes could be updated! àbottom-up still works

therapy: brings to awareness the faulty expectations/schemes

-->help updating

-->so does a good relationship/good episodes (which are interpreted as good)

attachment patterns/styles/orientation: those individual diff. in consistency of relating to the other in times of need (attachment), based on prior experience w/ past attachment

figures

àconsistency of the attachment b/h style expression

note: not global but rather consistent/dominant

levels of measuring:

• general
• specific partner
• specific partner in specific situation/episode

• emotions
• b/h
• cognitions

-lately, in stead if speaking of working models, you speak of styles àmuch easier to speak about than working models

àproblem: people forget that this reflects a whole system and not just a preferred style àmany research mistakes

-bowlby very little spoke of it. Episode/context/dynamics/pathology of working models

ànot ‘style’[intra-psychic] àbowlby was more interactionalist/dyadic relationship

->when speaking of attachment style, there is a deviance from bowlby

àonly lately, beginning to return to dyadic kind of relationship, as opposed to the intra-psychic

aisnworth: was the first to deal w/ attachment in NA

àcalled it ‘attachment patterns:’

criticism of several

àproblem: no referral to several elements of the theory:

àwhen you label a certain kid is a certain style, you forget that there is an interaction which makes relationship dynamic! You must understand the past [and future] of relationship, its contexts and its dynamics that lead of the attachment style, not just the attachment style itself!

ài.e. mom asked to still-face:

Main idea: in is not just a style but a process!!

Ainsworth: the strange situation paradigm

-9 months: has cognitive ability to tell diff. b/w primary caregiver and othrs:

• separation anxiety
• stranger anxiety

àboth b/c of distance from primary caregiver

àProblem! It is not only w/ other people, but also strange situation (w/o people) where kid might seek proximity ànot only in social situations [distancing from parent] but also in other scary situations

Ainsworth disregarded parent. àher students [**] noted that the attachment also is related to parental b/hàparent often returns w/ disgust face, and the baby does so too

àthe question now is whether it is a style of a context àthsu you must not only look at the child

ài.e. emotional availability: of the parent

strange situation – cased 3 diff. kinds of b/h style

1. anxious-avoidant: anxious when separated from mom, like the secure, will be calmed. Though unlike the secure, the diff is in the return, where the kid avoids mom [actively] when she returns. Tried to avoid mom. This is not lack of attachment, but the equilibrium asks the distance over proximity to mom.
2. secure: calming effect of proximity: ability to be freed into other activities àthose have s. confidence: they are able to deal w/ distress even when attachment figure is not immediately there àthey will slowly be calmed aver protest that mom left: secure that mom will return: when she does, the kid shows proximity, and then returns to activity and not stuck to her àshows his flexibility in the relationship w/ mom. Same thing w/ stranger: hug mom, yet also study the stranger àvariability in how they express security, yet they are always able to be dependent, yet not glued
3. anxious-ambivalent: hyperactivity of attachment system. The kid has little security in mom. When she leaves, great protest, which might lead to frustration– might have to call mom b/f end of 3 minute strange situation. When she returns, there is ambivalence. Returns to mom when she comes, yet facial expressions show anger. Also the hug shows anger – hitting wile hugging = ambivalence (anger yet longing for mom) -the capacity to be alone (winnicot) is missing.
4. unclassified [ainsweorth]: random reactions to mom.

àthis confusion is really disorganized [Main/Lyons-Ruth)

àtheir confusion is not random: failure of deactivation and over-activation

àespecially seen in traumatic/neglecting relation w/ mom (such as in abuse)

attachment in adolescence:

Bowlby: attachment occurs all life!

-adult no longer scared of stranger/strange situation

2 approaches:

1. ainsworth: [Through her students, Main] –1984-5
1. functions all life
2. set from internal rep. of mother/primary care-giver
3. in 1^st year, the attachment styles will be set and will be applied to other relationships

-imp. they don’t have to be conscious àI might not be aware that I am avoidant of mother àmy relationship is not rational àSelf-report is irrelevant here

àsemantic report as well as content: ask h. you mom is and what each word means (remembering the episodes)

2. social/personality: shaver: (1987)

focus:

1. attachment is all live
2. attachment is part of the internal reps. of the ind,
3. based on past experiences
4. also present relationship, and other history elements of the ind (diff. from Main)

main idea: what are the present representations (not past internal representations)

àthe present could be infl. but not fixed by past

5. some rep. might be unconscious but others might be conscious. People might also be aware of attitudes/preferences/some personality attributes (introvert vs. extrovert)

àself-report could be used according to this approach

view of each other:

• main: whomever is not asking about only the past, is not an attachment researcher
• shaver/hasan: you should ask about the past but also about the present!

àmuch more flexible

April 1, 2003

-main: wanted to check attachment in adolescents. She was Ainsworth’s student, she wanted to redo Ainsworth’s stuff, but you can’t watch them, so she gave them Eysenck’s questionnaires.

Note:

1. when we look at the AAI (Main’s 3 staged interview [secure/anxious/avoidant]) and Self report (of soc. psych) there is no relation of the end-product of both of them
2. when you fix up and ask about current relationships in the domains, or ask about the specific measures (security/anxious/avoidant) -->you find a relationship

3. if you take a specific criterion (the diff. b/w narrative and semantics) and compare it to questionnaires – more relationships b/w the 2 approaches

conclusion: the apparent diff. in results is merely b/c of procedural/technical reasons

Hazan and shaver 1987:

Security

1. willing/able to be in a relation
2. no anxiety about other’s intents in the relationship
3. knowing that he will be there when I need him

Anxious

1. hyper-activation:
1. strong will for relation
2. fear that this relationship won’t occur

Avoidant

1. deactivation
1. I don’t like to share my feelings
2. I don’t like to be dependent on others

Hasan/shaver: self-report

• Secure: 50-60
• Anxious 20-30
• Avoidant: 10-20

-->almost identical to ainsworth!!!!!

-how can the avoidant idealize his parents?

-->he has no problem not sharing feelings w/ others –those who share their feelings is bad!!!

• rating: h.m. of each of the 3 general categories you relate to
• problem: those broad categories might not be his perception to be associated w/ each other
• fixed up: 15 diff. scales: more specified -->factor analysis helps us get what category the guy is
• many people have high correlations b/w the smaller scales and general
• except a unique avoidant population, that claims that they are secure (in the broad categories)
• some anxious that claim that they are avoidant

• best way: measure h.m. of each scale he is and see h. each scale relates to his general functioning

-->odfut: see if there is a high correlation – don’t know which is the key element: we assume that if you are 1 category, you can’t be the other

fraley/weller: taxonomy: (categories) h.m. can we assume from discrete ratings what category one is in

-->conclusion: better to have a continuous ratings and not a discrete!! No forced choice answers on the questionnaires!!! More exact!!

Brennan/Clark/Shauer:

-compare questionnaires of attachment:

-->600 items (from all the questionnaires)

-->did factor analysis: (find the redundancies in items)

-conclusion: a 2 factor element is the best way of categorizing the continuum of attachment:

1. anxiety
2. avoiding

-orthogonal: very diff: diff. unrelated or not overlapping world

Person 1

avoidant

person 2

Anxious

-there is no categories but levels of 2 continuums!!!!

Disorganized is both avoidant is and anxious

2 unique cases where there is a relationship w/ avoidant and anxious

Secure:

-happy married/and parents

• lower in both

Pathological

• high in both

-the point is: – there is no discrete groups but rather dynamic, continuous groupings of attachment styles

empirical research

episodic model: what happens at any given time/context

-->also chronic, since it also relates to working models/dominant attachment styles

-not fully conscious (also unconscious-->doesn’t need conscious reference to it.)

first module: starting of the system

• sign of threat?
• no

second module: the basis of the activation of strategy of attachment

-here, there is a diff. b/w the secure and the insecure people/contexts

third module: when there is no security

-what should we do? hyper-activation or deactivation

-a question/threat

Assumed psychic processes

Things that we see

+excitatory –inhibition

module #1

Is there a threat?

• no – continue activities
• yes: activation of psychic system of attachment
• expressed in looking for attachment figure (external or internal)

module #2

is figue responsive/available

• yes: attachment-security/security-based strategies
• the what is expressed is the person not worrying anymore and thus engage in non-attachment activities: exploration: should stop the attachment system -->then returns to the question of whether there is a threat or not
• here, could be a closed circuit called building a broadening cycle
• we are aware enough to explore/broaden, yet always have a secure base -->if this cycle is repeated often, he assumes that internal/external representations of attachment figures are strong -->securely attached

• no: attachment insecurity: compounding of distress [not only the original stress but also the stress of no source of security]

module #3

Should I continue to seek proximity?

-is it a viable to continue the proximity seeking?

-->seeking procedure is still there!

• no: deactivation: since the activation of the system just makes me more stressful, so I avoid the system at whatever cost! -->hypervigilece to any source of threat (inhibits any signs of stress [module 1]/asking if any attachment figure is available [module 2]) -->avoidant attachment (if chronic)
• yes: hyperactivation: excitatory effect of looking for threats(module 1) /attachment figures –module 2) -->anxious attachment(if chronic)

criticism of this model:

-links from other models!!! No reference to other systems/effects!!!

-->for example, the specific attachment figure in the specific context!

-->they definitely help pull the system to certain directions

disorganized: when hyper-deactivation to such abuse unti attachment system breaks out! Yet it explodes out!

Empirical research:

• module #1
• Its enough that associative memory brings forth threat, to activate system
• Perhaps from unconscious memory!/perceived cue from people

In adulthood: unlike childhood, proximity is not necessarily physical proximity

-->could be internal/non-existential

-widows often speak to their deceased husband!/speak to G-d [prayer]

-->in attachment works: leaving/security/etc…

-attachment if foremost cognitive and later behavioral

-->if it is internal representations, it is more internal than behavioral

note

-through meeting w/ attachment figures, we learn about ourselves (self-concept)

-->there is a mental association b/w self-concept and other-concept

-->yet, you can speak about areas of the self in attachment words, since the self is build in relation to (also) others, i.e. attachment figures

-->i.e. secure self-concept: h. was I w/ security people

in threat:

-->then I am secure, since the attachment figures are already w/I me!!! (w/I my self!)

-->anxious people have internalized into the self anxious internal rep.

-->thus the self is is many layers -->just b/c we don’t see it doesn’t not mean that it is not there!

-anxious – more b/h is observed [not only cognitive element of the attachment system] –since he needs more reinforcement àless internalized security

April 29, 2003

When system is activated [even when no overt b/h] àmust remember function: proximity/security

àmust have heuristics/automatic shortcuts

àthe system tries to be as economic as possible

proximity/support seeking: only when less costly b/hs seemed unsuccessful

-i.e. physical proximity seeking is expensive àperson could be unavailable

àcould be a cognitive representation

-if a thing is not appeasing:

• working models
• experience
• availability
• accessibility

àgo to more costly thing in attempt to feel security

-the more massive the event is, the b/h system is more conscious and overt

levels of b/h system of attachment

activation of systemàinternal representationsàconscious thoughtsàactions

avoidant person:

• won’t get to do actions
• sometimes, in strong avoiders, he won’t even speak about the thoughts, since he will want to even avoid them

-in babies àdirectly to b/h – no internal rep/conscious thoughts

3 sets of studies regarding attachment

1. Mikolincer, Birnbaum, nachmaians and woddis (2000)
1. People answer questions regarding attachment
1. Anxiety/avoidence level is established
2. cognitive task – lexical decision (he is shown a few letters for 500ms) àhe has to say if it is a word or not

àfaster reaction = more accessibility of word (through semantic priming!)

-i.e. if word nurse is seen b/f doctor, it is faster recognized than, say, moist is seen b/f doctor

2. Mikolincer and Gilath and shaver (2002)

3. Mikolincer and Shaver, (in press)
1. Stroup – give list of words w/ diff. colors of letters. People have to say not what the word is, but the color name
1. He has to inhibit the semantics of the word!

àmuch longer reaction time, when the written word is a diff. color’s name

-conclusion: we react naturally to the semantics!

-react faster to moist-dr. than nurse-dr. since in the 2^nd time, he wants to say dr.

conclusion:

àmore reaction time =more accessibility, since there is more noise!.

-in lexical decision/stroup, the person does not need to be conscious of itàeven when priming is subliminal.

àwhat is imp. is the accessibility and not consciousness

half the times: [b/f the word]

• Neutral stimuli: i.e. the word hat

Other half

• Threatening stimuli: fail/death

2000 study – directly related to proximity vs. avoidance vs. positive words unrelated to attachment vs. negative words unrelated to attachment vs. atural

dependant variable: reaction time

finding: only affect words related to proximity

àthere is associative relationship b/w ‘failure’ and proximity

conclusionàwhen we’re stressed out, we seek proximity

we found the relation ship b/w activation of system and the internal representation

2002 study

-name association was given, in stead of words

1. WHOTO questionnaire dealing w/ people who are attachment figures
2. has to list close people – demographic questionnaire
3. 100 name – has to say if he knows someone w/ that name

-we have 3 lists - a list of people he doesn’t know, he knows and is close to him

4 categories of names:

Lexical decision: has to decide whether it is a name or not , as fast as possible.

Individual diff.

-avoidant and secure people react the same to the word relating to proximity!

-deactivation as seen in avoidant people, is not in the internal representation level.

-people who are high in avoidance, react faster to attachment figures even when primed to neutral words

àconclusion: his b/h system is chronically active, though deactivated

anxious

-both in neutral and also in anxiety cases, love and separation systems, come up again

àwhen he feels like hyper-activation b/w anxiety, also negative energy of separation arise and thus b/c avoidant àthus called anxious-ambivalent

avoidant:

-death has association w/ separation

-unlike anxious –equal speed b/w separation (death) and neutral (hat) words w/ priming of separation words

-repression –i.e. in avoidance, takes cognitive energy

-in cognitive overload: big task, while trying to inhibit something (denial) = the denial is weakened and thus rises and b/c more available

-when given concurrent neutral vs. separation tasks in priming of separation,

-avoidant deals faster w/ the separation word – since the energy from the repressed is relieved

-anxious person reacts fast to everything since he always feels threatened.

Avoidant: there is thoughts of proximity, but it is strongly repressed

Conclusion: In the adult, there are symbolic cues that activate attachment ideas

May 13/2003

question

How come, each time there is a threat, he seeks proximity – more dependent. While the secure person is competent/high se àhigh sense of autonomy, yet dependent?

Answer:

-Dependent on the object:

• secure :has a positive sense of the other - the mere turn to the other gives the sense of security
• the secure person doesn’t seek proximity: he seeks internal representations at first, and not first seeks external help. Will only seek external help if needed, and not in the beginning
• we are autonomous from the other object but dependent on the internal obj.
• now the other [object] is no longer a object – I can deal with him as a subject

• anxious: always feels that he needs help from the external other àis thus very dependent
• the external other is still an object. I don’t see him as a full subject (w/ own needs)

internal rep. of self

-dev. from interactions from others àbased on representations of the other objects

• first stage: kid recognizes himself in the mirror
• now the next stage is how the person perceives himself

-interactions: I assume that if mom helps he and takes time away from her activities, that I am worthy

• kid learns h. m. he can activate the other
• self-efficiency
• mastery of the environment

àthe secure learns that he is competent, since he has internal objects of security

àhe also learns that I am decreasingly dependent on those internal representations

note

-its not the mom’s fault but the fault of the interaction between the mom (and her temperaments) and the kid (and his temperaments)

prototype of attachment

Stage 1

2 actors:

• person (P)
• the other (O)

1. threat
2. P turns to O for help
3. P helps O

Stage 2

Bowlby: each interaction causes internalization of the interaction

• internalization of the other: the view of the attachment figure
• internalization of self: the view of me in relationship to the attachment figure

Stage 3

-entry of the representations into the circle of representations of me.

-entry of rep of the ‘other’ [attachment figure]

imp!!!

àthis rep. of ‘other’ also becomes part of me as part of identification process

àthus, a more secure person àmore empathy to the other

--

2 centers in attachment:

1. h. am I in interaction with figures of attachment
2. how am I a caregiver of myself? [I have internalized the sense of caregiver]

Bollas: how we have internalized discussions.

• I suck
• It will be ok
• Self-statements: connections to identifications with the internalized objects

-called self-caregivings

àI calm myself just as the caregiver did by symbolically taping into rep. fo the caregiver

How can we observe this?

Davis:

2 meetings:

• ask people to have 3 descriptions:
• when person helps you in a threat [secure attachment figure]
• 10 traits of yourself that are expressed when you’re with attachment figure
• other figures [control] that you enjoy working w/ (explorative)
• 10 traits of you when you’re with that person
• other figure that you like to have fun with
• 10 traits if you when you’re with that person

-there where many overlapping traits

2^nd meeting: cognitive tests (categorizations)

• 2 categorization
• failures
• no solutions (random)

-questionnaires:

• evaluate h.m. (of the 50) traits given, evaluate yourself
• traits unique to the attachment figure
• traits unique to explorative figure
• traits unique to friends
• traits of others of the sample
• mood
• cognitive disruptions

Trait questions:

• no diff. in neutral cases b/w friends/explorative
• in failure: more traits of self while w/ attachment figure

main idea: in emergencies, attachment system comes up, as well as how I try to calm myself!

àespecially in secure people, those [calming] traits will rise

-less negativity/cognitive disruptions during failing episode if the attachment figures’ representations/my own attachment trait representations raise

In the model [flowchart] of attachment:

-is there the 2ns question: is the attachment figure available

not only threat, but also perceived threat!

-perception of availability:

• overt behaviors of attachment figure [context]
• workings of internal representations àprojection àtransference of those working models [attachment style]

-if perception of availability: leads to secure transactions

àmust also remember context àthe ‘other’ person

àattachment is thus:

• intrapsychic
• psychodynamic theory
• interpersonal –not only interpersonal

Idea

PERSON X SITUATION

-the projection is cognitive – you apply the working model of the role you assume for the person

thus

-someone with a history of secure attachment , he has positive expectations

àmore likely to perceive the other as available!

In a given interaction:

Lots of room for interpretation: no one says: ‘I need attachment!’

àthings are more subtle

àbehind each b/h is intentions and we have to guess the other’s intentions

àsecure people attribute more positive intentions

àwhen attachment figure reacts in the way we don’t expect, we give excuses

Collins, 1996

-Asked one of partners to record speech for campus. Other partner has to be outside, yet help the experiment by giving messages to the speakers by giving comforting signals.

1. Vague messages: ‘not too bad’
2. Clear messages

->those messages were played to the speaking

seeing how the speaker felt that the other is available in the threatening time of speak recording

• vague message – less seen as attachment figure
• clear messages – more seen as attachment figure

main idea: context also infl. attachment

vague message: bigger diff. b/w secure/insecure that with the clear encouraging messages

clear message –

did better than vague message: the context ibfl. The attachment and the performance!!!

-couple – easier to survive if at least 1 is secure attachment

another odd couple:

• man avoidant/women is anxious

similarity/differentiation b/w myself and the other

• The secure can view the other as the other is.
• They are more sensitive to who the other is
• The insecure has more room for projections/mistakes
• Their internal world is projected outwards
• Reality has less weight than the secure’s perception of reality is.

Psychological formulas:

Similarity = together

Different = separation

-when baby realizes that mom has own will, which is diff. from his own, he realizes that is different the she might separate –[separation-individuation of Mahler]

Study

• finding difference is threatening to anxious attachment
• avoidant looks for difference since his interest is to look for distance to other people

3 levels

• emotion t/w partner
• behavior
• behaviors of partner

àthere has to be signal detection: if partner thinks he is listening to her while she didn’t

àproblem

follow couples perceived supportive b/h over time

• anxious/avoidant attachment – less positive affect t/w husband over time
• while days he listened, she felt better
• more – more positive affect

how does this relate to internal representations?:

• more anxious: very sensitive to partner’s b/h
• less anxious, more global positive affect to partner

-avoidant – always look negatively at partner, regardless of context/reality

main idea: differential perception of reality

How do attachment styles get expressed in diff/ interpersonal relations?

Attachment styles:

• Dealing w/ stress situations: b/c lack of security
• Emotive Coping is functional – if it calms us enough in order to deal w/ the situation. But when we focus only on the emotion and not its function, it is bad!!!
• Rumination: occurs in hyper-activation – talks about how poor I am!!!
• Anxious will try to display himself as poorer than reality in order to draft the other to help him
• Will even degrade himself to get other’s love

àmain idea: is emotional coping (+/- of emotion) used to achieve your goals or to get you to function more realistically

-avoidant: escapes those situations or emotions/detaches cognitive from emotive factors

• anxious: scratches at the cut, yet it doesn’t heal
• avoidant: doesn’t deal w/ cut, so it gets worse

àonly problem when repression is chronic

-secure: dealing w/ emotion and then problem àflexibility after giving birth to sick child

-avoidant – avoids emotion àafter birth – over-emotion

-anxious –over-emotive coping techniques àno change after birth, but decline in emotion – improved mental health

• Management of negative affect: how do I deal w/ negative memories?

Several options

• Avoid them [the avoidant] àrepressive mechanisms
• Hyperactivation: strengthening of emotions àchaotic, overcharged levels of emotion. Associativeness of memories. 1 brings the next, etc…

àmanagement of negative affect – tries to stop those associations from bonding on to other memories

àin anxious: there is no management of affect – there is no mechanism which limits the association and thus each negative episode will add on to other [possibly neutral] situations

àno differentiation!!! Anger at wrong people!

àcould be strategic!!!!

àor could be a problem in the cognitive system: self-regulation

Wagner: thought suppression

Rebound effect: after we’re allowed to think of the topic, we think of it more

àavoidant- don’t have the rebound effect even about separation memories suppressed!

àanxious – stronger rebound effect!

Question:

Does avoidant repress in the encoding or in the retrieval?

àin no encoding: there is no negative energy [too ad for Freud]

àif prob. in retrieval – energy pressure-pot

pre-emptive defenses:

-the avoidant has preemptive defenses, already in the encoding level

àdoesn’t encode all of the negative components of the situation

• Interpersonal relationship àrelationship system
• Self-concept
• Avoidance – related to perfectionism since he is very sensitive to vulnerabilities

• Anxious: negative self-concept [diff. b/w real and ideal self] à I am stupid (and I shouldn’t be!)
• Avoidant: also diff. in self-concept, but the baseline is diff.: I am good, but I should be better! àdepression based on high self-critical levels
• Perfectionism
• In failure [threatening cases], higher SE, since he now feels strive (unlike the anxious who feels threatened)
• Other-concept
• Mental health
• Relationship w/ other systems of behavior
• Exploration
• Sexuality
• Friendship
• Caregiving

Biblio Reading

Normative components of attachment Behavioral system Behavioral system: Species-universal way of organizing behavior of the individual in functional ways àto increase survival -those behavioral systems are inborn and evolutionaryàis not learnt àbehavioral system (i.e. attachment/caregiving/etc.) follows a predictable pattern 6 components of behavioral system specific biological function that increases the individual’s survival/reproductive success of the individual contextual activating trigger a set of interchangeable, functionally equivalent behaviors that constitute the primary strategy of the behavioral system to attain a particular goal the specific-set goal (which terminates the activated b/h cognitive operations involved in the functioning of the system specific inhibitory/excitatory neural links to other b/h systems biological function of attachment system -to protect from dangers (especially in infancy) by maintaining proximity to caring/supporting others (attachment figures) ànatural selection preferred to maintain proximity to the ‘stronger and wiser’ -Bowlby: even though attachment is most imp. in infancy, it is maintained in adulthood, in times of need. àhelpful for coping/adjustment -in infancy, 1 parent is main attachment figure. In adulthood, many relationship partners could act as attachment figures. (also: institutions/religion/etc…) -some people (i.e. teachers) are short-term or context-bound attachment people, while others are more long term (i.e. parents) àhierarchical activating trigger: threat àif no threat, then attraction to others might be activated by anther system (i.e. sexual behavioral system) àbut attachment could also be activated by cues of danger (i.e. darkness/isolation/loud noises) or even a threat to just to attachment !!!! (i.e. separation) primary attachment strategy -attachment = seeks protection mainly through proximity attachment= is a repertoire of b/h which is chosen conscious/unconsciously to seek emotional or instrumental support goal: set of behaviors = to seek proximity function: protection -set of behaviors incl: anger: to seek more security/contact comfort/etc… -in adulthood :might seek symbolic/internal representation àwhen failed àcould set-goal of attachment system: attainment of real or perceived security àsroufe = ‘felt security’ bowlby: attachment figures should be responsive to ind.’s proximity seeking attempts in times of need physical/emotional safe haven secure base to which ind. can explore world = confidence that help will be there when needed cognitive substrate of attachment b/h: -attachment is complex goal-corrected system àyet is very flexible processes of information about person-environmental interaction: monitor of internal state/external event monitoring of attachment figure’s response to proximity seeking b/h monitoring/appraisal of viability of proximity seeking b/h working model: the model which represents data relevant to the goal-corrected b/h working = predict likely outcomes of various attachment b/h àadjusting mechanism provisional = could be changeable working models of the self: not self esteem but rather h. I appear to the other when I ask for help: am I strong enough to get his help/worthy/etc… working models of others: memories I have about others that are supposed to help know functions of security that this person can give me (àeach person has a working model of others) what gets him angry/calm/etc. working models of interaction: if this interaction has benefits or not? What are the best ways to seek help? Interplay b/w attachment behavioral system and other b/h systems -feeling of threat- inhibits other b/h systems (i.e. sex/affiliatory/exploratory activities) àtoo focused on self’s needs for protection that they lack mental resources necessary to attend to other’ àonce threat is over, there is a reciprocal effect: encouragement of other b/h activities Individual diff. in operation of attachment system -optimal: availability of 1 or more attachment figures in times of need as well as their responsiveness àthough the quality of interaction might be different. If caregiver is responsive to proximity seeking: -kid b/c confident in proximity-seeking as a means of attaining emotional equanimity àmore trust in others as well as his own resources in dealing w/ stress àincreased sense that world is a good place w./ goof people if attachment figue is unavailable (emotionally) in times of need àattachment figure is unresponsive àattachment b/h is disrupted and set-goal is not attained -stress is not only unrelieved but rather increased by fear that safety can not be attained!! doubts: world is a safe place safety can be attained others can be trusted he has recourses to deal w/ stress àsense of vulnerability that affects all of life’s activities!!! Secondary attachment strategies: -if negative interaction w/ unresponsive/unavailable attachment figure -->Exacerbates rather than diminishes insecurity àleads to secondary attachment strategies 2 main secondary attachment strategies: hyper-activation: ‘fight’: intensifies attempts to seek proximity deactivation: ‘flight’: gives up attempt to seek attachment àdoesn’t end up w/ proximity àattempts to deal w/ dangers by himselfà ‘compulsive self-reliance’ -attachment-deactivation people try to downplay attachment behaviors to avoid the pain of unavailability From strategies to mental representations: generalized individual diff: -variations in quality interaction can produce ind. diff. in functioning od attachment strategy àinfl. by cognitive substrate of attachment system: working models àevery interaction symbolically gets internalized (self/partner) -early childhood memories of self/others/outcomes during attachment interaction has: successful proximity-seeking episodes hyperactivated episodes deactivated episodes -each of those models has: episodic memory of interaction sequence declarative sequence of partner’s response efficacy of ind.’s responses procedural knowledge about ways in which one responds to such situachs and deals w/ diff. sources of stress. We’re interested in the attachment strategy used by ind. in each relational episode: Not only shape the procedural knowledge but also bias the declarative knowledge about self/attachment figure according to the goals that those b/h’s is supposed to attain (i.e. hyperactivating to get the unavailable attachment figure) àin short, there is also a regulatory system! Conclusion: working models of self/others always blends actual social encounter and subjective biases resulting from attachment strategies -like other mental representations (which are the psych. manifestation of underlying neural networks), working models has excitatory/inhibitory associations: excites congruent models and inhibits incongruent models -i.e. memories of hyper-activation/deactivation is less accessible when thinking of security-attained episode àrethinking of them strengthens those links making them abstract/generalized representations -consolidation of those links –often link to other attachment figures àcreates a generalized hierarchical associative network, where episodic memory b/c exemplars, which in turn b/c generic relational schemas note: -people have working models of successful security-attaining relationships and sometimes of hyperactivation or deactivation question: which working model is used to guide expectatuibs/concerns/b/h in particualt interaction w/ attachment figure? Answer: Based on each model’s: relative experience w/ each model # of time applied in the past density of its connections w/ other cognitive Specific level: -the model rep. the typical interaction w/ attachment figure is most likely to be activated in subsequent episodes Generic level: -most accessible model of interaction b/c the most easily activated -features of current situation (and not only history of attachment interaction) infl. activation of working models contextual cues (person’s love/availability/supportiveness = could activate person’s current working models of security àeven if they are not so typically used. -the main interaction style will be used in new situations as well.