personality personality trait = 1.) heritable (i.e., genetically influenced; approximately half of...
Post on 22-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
Personality
PERSONALITY TRAIT = 1.) HERITABLE (I.e., genetically influenced;
approximately half of variation is due to genetic differences)
2.) INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 3.) REASONABLY STABLE 4.) RELATING TO A PERSON'S
EMOTIONAL, INTERPERSONAL, EXPERIENTIAL, ATTITUDINAL, AND MOTIVATIONAL STYLES.
Personality
1.) EACH PERSONALITY DIMENSION REPRESENTS VARIATION IN AN EVOLVED SYSTEM. EVERYONE HAS THE SYSTEM, BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE HIGHER ON THE DIMENSION THAN OTHERS; E. G., WE ALL HAVE THE MECHANISMS
UNDERLYING FEAR, BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE FEARFUL THAN OTHERS
2.) EACH EVOLVED SYSTEM IS A BIOLOGICAL ADAPTATION WITH A SPECIFIC SURVIVAL FUNCTION. E.G., FEAR FUNCTIONS TO AVOID DANGERS
Personality
3.) EXTREMES TEND TO BE MALADAPTIVE BEING AFRAID OF DANGEROUS THINGS IS
ADAPTIVE, BUT BEING AFRAID OF EVERYTHING ISN'T
Personality
4.) PERSONALITY TRAITS OR SYSTEMS ARE NOT TYPES OF PEOPLE. Individuals are high or low on a given
personality system, but it’s misleading to describe people as “the shy type” or the conscientious type as if they don’t have other facets to their personality.
Behavioral Approach System
(1) BEHAVIORAL APPROACHVARIATION IN: SOCIAL DOMINANCE, ATTRACTION TO REWARD, SENSATION SEEKING, IMPULSIVITY, RISK-TAKING, ASSERTIVENESS, AGGRESSION
EMOTIONS: POSITIVE AROUSAL, EXHILARATION, HAPPINESS, CONFIDENCE,POSITIVE SELF-REGARD, ANGER
SURVIVAL FUNCTION: ACTIVE INTERFACE WITH ENVIRONMENT (Get stuff): Mates, status, other resources
Behavioral Approach (Go) System EXTREMES MALADAPTIVE
High extreme: Extreme on sensation seeking, impulsivity and reward sensitivity.
Low extreme: Depression, lack of interest in rewards. PHYSIOLOGICAL MECHANISM:
REWARD SENSITIVITY; AROUSAL REGULATION; SENSATION SEEKING GENES Emotion centers of the left cortex; the left cortex has inhibitory
connections to right cortex responsible for negative emotions (Table 3.1)
SEX DIFFERENCES: MALES > FEMALES AGE CHANGES: HIGHEST IN LATE ADOLESCENCE, YOUNG
ADULTHOOD: THE "YOUNG MALE SYNDROME"
STOP SYSTEM (BEHAVIORAL INHIBITION SYSTEM)
VARIATION IN: FEAR, CAUTION, WORRY ABOUT THREATS TO SELF OR NOVELTY
THERE IS VARIATION IN FEAR AND ANXIETY IN NOVEL (SCARY) SITUATIONS OR WITH UNFAMILIAR PEOPLE BEGINNING IN SECOND HALF OF FIRST YEAR
KAGAN: 15% OF 2-YEAR-OLDS ARE BEHAVIORLY INHIBITED;CONSIDERABLE STABILITY OF BEHAVIORAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASURES (HIGH AND STABLE HEART RATE, STRESS HORMONES)
STOP SYSTEM (BEHAVIORAL INHIBITION SYSTEM)
EMOTIONS: FEAR, ANXIETY, TENSION
SURVIVAL FUNCTION: RESPOND TO DANGERS
EXTREMES MALADAPTIVE: High end: Phobic; Low end: fearless
SEX DIFFERENCES: FEMALES > MALES
Affectional (Love/Nurturance) System 3.) AFFECTIONAL SYSTEM VARIATION IN:
TENDENCIES TOWARD LOVE, WARMTH, ALTRUISM, SYMPATHY, COMPASSION, TRUST, COMPLIANCE, EMPATHY
EMOTIONS: LOVE, SYMPATHY, EMPATHY SURVIVAL FUNCTION:
FAMILY AS UNIT OF REPRODUCTION; PAIR BONDING; BRING FATHER INTO FAMILY: Paternal
Investment RAISING HIGH QUALITY CHILDREN
Affectional (Love/Nurturance) System EXTREMES MALADAPTIVE: Sociopathy on
low end, dependency disorder on high end.
PHYSIOLOGICAL MECHANISM: DOPAMINERGIC REWARD SYSTEM; OXYTOCIN
SEX DIFFERENCES: FEMALES > MALES; females more likely to have dependency disorder, males more likely to be sociopathic
Conscientiousness
4.) CONSCIENTIOUSNESS SYSTEM VARIATION IN: DEPENDABILITY, RESPONSIBILITY, PLANFULNSS,THOROUGHNESS, ATTENTION TO DETAIL, DUTIFULNESS,ACHIEVEMENT STRIVING, DELIBERATENESS, EFFICIENT,LACK OF SELF-INDULGENCE, ABILITY TO DELAYGRATIFICATION, FOCUSED EFFORT
Mechanism: Prefrontal inhibitory mechanisms control output of sub-cortical mechanisms
EMOTIONS: GUILT, SELF-ESTEEM; HOPE FOR GOAL ATTAINMENT
SURVIVAL FUNCTION: TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS; ACHIEVE LONG- TERM GOALS BY ENGAGING IN BEHAVIOR WHICH IS NOT INTRINSICALLY FUN, OR PLEASURABLE;FORM COHESIVE GROUPS
Conscientiousness
EXTREMES MALADAPTIVE: High extreme: Obsessive/compulsive; low extreme: ADHD
SEX DIFFERENCES: FEMALES > MALES AGE CHANGES: BECOMES STRONGER
WITH AGE
Reactivity/Emotionality
5.) REACTIVITY/EMOTIONALITY: VARIATION IN THE TENDENCY TO BECOME EMOTIONALLY AROUSED FOR ALL OF THE EMOTIONS.
HIGH REACTIVE CHILD: Low Threshold for Arousal
POSITIVE AFFECT
NEUTRAL AFFECT ________________________________________________
NEGATIVE AFFECTLOW MEDIUM HIGH
LEVEL OF STIMULATION
Reactivity/Emotionality
5.) REACTIVITY/EMOTIONALITY: VARIATION IN THE TENDENCY TO BECOME EMOTIONALLY AROUSED FOR ALL OF THE EMOTIONS.
LOW REACTIVE CHILD: High Threshold for Arousal
POSITIVE AFFECT
NEUTRAL AFFECT ________________________________________________
NEGATIVE AFFECTLOW MEDIUM HIGH
LEVEL OF STIMULATION
Reactivity/Emotionality
A.) MODALITY SPECIFICITY: DIFFERENT SENSORY SYSTEMS MAY HAVE DIFFERENT REACTIVITIES
B.) ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN REACTIVITY:MONGOLOID < CAUCASIAN OR AFRICAN-AMERICAN
C.) DEVELOPMENTAL SHIFTS: TERRIBLE TWO'S ANDADOLESCENCE
Reactivity/Emotionality
D.) ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES(E. G., PREMATURITY, PRENATAL DRUG EXPOSURE)
SURVIVAL FUNCTION: MOBILIZE BEHAVIORAL RESOURCES
EXTREMES MALADAPTIVE: High end: Bipolar affective disorder;
SEX DIFFERENCES: FEMALES > MALES AGE CHANGES: CHILDREN BECOME LESS
EMOTIONAL WITH AGE; young children “wear their emotions on their sleeve”; can’t inhibit expressions of displeasure when they are upset.
General Principles
1.) ALL PERSONALITY TRAITS ARE HERITABLE (Heritability = 0.50)
2.) ACTIVE AND EVOCATIVE G→E EFFECTS; ACTIVE G→E EFFECTS IMPLY SELF-REGULATION; EVEN EMOTIONALITY (REACTIVITY)
HAS SELF-REGULATORY EFFECTS
3.) EXTREMES TEND TO BE MALADAPTIVE
General Principles
4.) PERSONALITY TRAITS OR SYSTEMS ARE NOT TYPES OF PEOPLE. INDIVIDUALS ARE HIGH OR LOW ON A GIVEN PERSONALITY SYSTEM.
5.) DIFFERENT SITUATIONS BRING OUT DIFFERENT PERSONALITY SYSTEMS: CONTEXTUAL TRIGGERS GO: PARTY STOP: DARK ALLEY CONSCIENTIOUSNESS: FINALS AFFECTIONAL SYSTEM: FAMILY LIFE
General Principles
REACTIVITY/EMOTIONALITY: not triggered by a particular context.
It is a general behavioral energizer.
Go Stop Conscientiousness Love
Reactivity/Emotionality
General Principles
6. There may be conflicts between personality systems in particular situations. E.g., deciding to go to a party (GO) or
study for finals (Conscientiousness). Paradigm: Approach/Withdrawal conflict
THE HERMAN'S HEAD THEORY OF PERSONALITY: CONFLICT AMONG THE
INDEPENDENT PERSONALITY SYSTEMS
1. Mutual Inhibitory Connections between Approach Systems (Go) and Withdrawal Systems (Stop)
2. Conscientiousness involves inhibitory connections to Approach (Go) system and Affectional (Nurturance/Love) System.
THE HERMAN'S HEAD THEORY OF PERSONALITY: CONFLICT AMONG THE
INDEPENDENT PERSONALITY SYSTEMS
G S A CBalanced
G S A CProne to conflicts between G and C
G S A C
One system dominant: A Fearful Person
Levels of an Evolutionary Perspective on Personality
I. Personality Systems as Universal Psychological Mechanisms: A. Personality Systems as Universal
Design Features of Humans Homologous with Similarly-Functioning Systems in Other Vertebrates
B. System X Context Interactions: Contexts trigger systems
C. System X System Interactions: Mutual inhibitory connections between systems
Levels of an Evolutionary Perspective on Personality
I. Personality Systems as Universal Psychological Mechanisms: D. System X Context X Trait Interactions: The
outcome of System x System interactions influenced by individual differences: A person with a strong Go system will be biased on the side of approach in conflicts between Go and Stop Systems
E. System-Specific Environmental Influences During Development: Environments during development that influence the Stop system have no effect on the Affectional system.
Levels of an Evolutionary Perspective on Personality
II. Approaches to Group Differences in Universal Mechanisms Based on Evolutionary Theory A. The Evolutionary Theory of Gender
Differences in Personality B. Evolutionary Approaches to Age
Differences in Personality Systems C. Evolution and Birth Order Differences in
Personality D. Life History Theory and Personality
Levels of an Evolutionary Perspective on Personality
III. Evolutionary Perspectives on Individual Differences A. Individual Differences within the Normal
Range seen as Variation in Viable Strategies
B. Individual Differences at the Extreme Ends of the Normal Range as Maladaptive (phobias) or High-Risk Strategies (High Sensation Seeking)
Levels of an Evolutionary Perspective on Personality
III. Evolutionary Perspectives on Individual Differences C. Social Evaluation: Individual Differences in
Others' Personalities as a Resource Environment: We evaluate others’ personalities depending on
our interests. D. Self-Evaluation and Self-Presentation of
Personality Traits as Mechanisms for Maximizing One's Resource Value in the Social Environment:
Putting your best foot forward, as on a first date or job interview.
Attachment vs. Nurturance/Love/Warmth: Part 1: Nurturance/Love/Warmth
Dimensions of Parenting
Permissive Authoritative
Neglectful Authoritarian
Uninvolved
Control
Warmth
Low High
high
low
Authoritative Parenting
AUTHORITATIVE PARENT CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR
Firm enforcement of rules Energetic, friendly Confronts disobedience Good peer relations Shows pleasure at child’s Accepts adult values
constructive behavior Considers child’s wishes and
opinions Warm, involved, responsive Achievement-oriented Expects mature, age-appropriate
behavior Family activitiesEducational standards
Authoritarian Parenting
Authoritarian Parent Child’s BehaviorRules rigidly enforced Fearful ApprehensiveConfronts Disobedience Shy Shows Anger Aggression Views child as evil Harsh, punitive discipline Passively hostile,
guileful No family activities Does not accept
parental valuesNo educational demands
Permissive Parenting
Permissive Parent Child’s BehaviorRules not enforced Non-compliant Yields to child coercion Low in self-reliance
Low in achievement strivingInconsistent discipline Lack of self-controlFew demands for mature, Aggressive, impulsive
independent behavior Moderate warmth Hides annoyance Domineering
child’s behavior Does not accept adult valuesGlorifies free expression
Neglectful Parenting
Neglectful Parent Child’s BehaviorMinimize costs of parentingRejects adult valuesUninvolved with children Peer group orientationFocus on own needs Fails to monitor children’s
delinquent activities,impulsivity, or school performance Aggression
Psychopathology Alienated from family (e.g., depression, drug use) Poor school achievement
Parents dislike friends Drug and alcohol use, precocious
sexual activity
WARMTH AS A MOTIVATOR
"PART OF THE CHALLENGE IS TO TEACH CHILDREN THE RULES. PART IS TO HELP THEM GAIN GRATIFICATION [=intrinsic motivation] BY OBEYING THE RULES"
WARMTH AS A MOTIVATOR: INTRINSIC (WARMTH) VERSUS EXTRINSIC (PUNISHMENT) MOTIVATION IN PARENTING
HOW WARMTH MOTIVATES: • WARM PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP IS MUTUALLY
REWARDING• CHILD IN WARM PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
THEREFORE VALUES RELATIONSHIP AND BEHAVES IN A MANNER WHICH PARENT APPROVES.
• CHILD THUS ACCEPTS ADULT VALUES, IS COMPLIANT, CHILD VALUES PARENTAL APPROVAL.
WARMTH AS A MOTIVATOR
WARMTH AS A MOTIVATOR: INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION IN PARENTING
AUTHORITATIVE PARENTING: PARENT HAS STANDARDS, CHILD HAS INTERNAL MOTIVATION TO CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS
INDULGENT/PERMISSIVE PARENTING: PARENT FAILS TO SET STANDARDS; CHILDREN MORE DRAWN TO THE PEER WORLD
AUTHORITARIAN PARENTS HAVE STANDARDS, BUT MOTIVATION IS EXTERNAL
NEGLECTFUL/INDIFFERENT PARENTS: NO STANDARDS, NO MOTIVATION; STRONG PULL TO PEER WORLD
WARMTH AS A REWARD SYSTEM The brain has several reward centers that make
various behavior pleasurable. For example there are reward systems for food, drugs (cocaine, heroin), sex. The result is that these behavior are pleasurable and people are therefore motivated to engage in them.
Warmth/love also depends on its own reward centers that make close, intimate relationships pleasurable. People high on the personality system of warmth/love are therefore motivated to seek out and maintain close relationships.
Warmth as a Reward System
Warm parenting results in making the child more sensitive to the reward value of positive social interaction: Moves child to the right on the curve. Lack of warm parenting may more child to the left. This is a system-specific environmental influence.
Analogy with effects of experience on nerve cells? Stimulation results in elaboration of neural networks Lack of stimulation results in atrophy
EVOLUTION OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY
EVOLUTIONARY TRENDS IN PARENTING: 1.) PRIMITIVE MAMMALIAN PATTERN: LOW
INVESTMENT: MANY YOUNG LARGE LITTERS SHORT LIFESPAN SMALL BRAINS COMPARED TO BODY SIZE, SHORT PERIOD OF DEPENDENCE ON PARENTS MALES NOT INVOLVED IN PARENTING:
MOTHER AND OFFSPRING IS FAMILY UNIT
EVOLUTION OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY
EVOLUTIONARY TRENDS IN PARENTING 2.) HUMANS: HIGH INVESTMENT:
FEW YOUNG, LONG LIFESPAN LARGE BRAINS LONG PERIOD OF DEPENDENCE ON PARENTS HIGH LEVEL OF PLASTICITY AND LEARNING
ABILITY NEEDED TO DO WELL IN COMPETITIVE OR HARSH
ENVIRONMENTS MALE INVOLVEMENT IN PARENTING
WARMTH IS PARTLY A MECHANISM FOR FACILITATING MALE INVOLVEMENT (ALSO FACILITATES MOTHERING/NURTURANCE).
DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENT REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGIES
LOW INVESTMENT HIGH INVESTMENT
A. FAMILY CONTEXT MARITAL DISCORD SPOUSAL HARMONY
SINGLE PARENTING PATERNAL COMMITMENT NEGLECTFUL PARENTING SIBLING REARING
B. CHILDREARING IN INFANCY/EARLY CHILDHOOD HARSH, REJECTING WARM, RESPONSIVE
INSENSITIVE STIMULATING UNSTIMULATING NO PARENT-CHILD PLAY PARENT-CHILD PLAY
DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENT REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGIES
LOW INVESTMENT HIGH INVESTMENT
C. PSYCHOLOGICAL/BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT INSECURE ATTACHMENT SECURE ATTACHMENT
MISTRUSTFUL INTERNAL WORKING MODEL RECIPROCALLY REWARDING OPPORTUNISTIC INTERPERSONAL STYLE INTERPERSONAL STYLE
D. SOMATIC DEVELOPMENT EARLY LATER
MATURATION/PUBERTY MATURATION/PUBERTY
E. REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY EARLIER SEXUAL ACTIVITY LATER SEXUAL ACTIVITY
UNSTABLE PAIR BONDS STABLE PAIR BONDS LOW INVESTMENT HIGH INVESTMENT PARENTING PARENTING
Attachment vs. Nurturance/Love/Warmth: Part 2: Attachment
DETERMINING ATTACHMENT STATUS: 1. STRANGE SITUATION TEST (See
Table 6.9, p. 150) 2. REUNION EPISODES ARE
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT for scoring
Attachment vs. Nurturance/Love/Warmth: Part 1: Attachment
DETERMINING ATTACHMENT STATUS: 3. CATEGORIES OF ATTACHMENT:
A. INSECURE AVOIDANT (A BABIES): OFTEN DO NOT CRY MUCH AT
SEPARATION; DO NOT SEEK PROXIMITY AND ACTIVELY
AVOID THE MOTHER AT REUNION; DO NOT RESIST CONTACT IF MOTHER
INITIATES IT; DO NOT CRY MUCH AT REUNION
Attachment vs. Nurturance/Love/Warmth: Part 1: Attachment
DETERMINING ATTACHMENT STATUS: 3. CATEGORIES OF ATTACHMENT:
B. SECURE ATTACHMENT (B BABIES): ACTIVELY SEEK PROXIMITY AND
CONTACT AT REUNION; OFTEN DISTRESSED DURING
SEPARATION, BUT CALM DOWN QUICKLY AT REUNION
Attachment vs. Nurturance/Love/Warmth: Part 1: Attachment
DETERMINING ATTACHMENT STATUS: 3. CATEGORIES OF ATTACHMENT: C. INSECURE AMBIVALENT (C BABIES)
VERY UPSET AND DISTRESSED DURING SEPARATION;
ACTIVELY SEEK PROXIMITY AND CONTACT AT REUNION;
RESIST CONTACT AT REUNION, OFTEN SHOWING ANGER;
CONTINUE CRYING AT REUNION; THEY DO NOT CALM DOWN EASILY AT
REUNION
ATTACHMENT THEORY
1.) LEARNING THEORY: a.) OLD VIEW: LOVE AS GENERALIZED
CONDITIONED RESPONSE; MOTHER SATISFIES BASIC DRIVES FOR
FOOD, ETC., BABY THEREFORE DEVELOPS POSITIVE
ATTITUDES LOVE (ALSO FREUDIAN); ETHOLOGICAL CRITIQUE: HARLOW'S MONKEY
STUDY
ATTACHMENT THEORY
1.) LEARNING THEORY: b.) MORE RECENTLY: MOTHERS AND BABIES
AS MUTUALLY REINFORCING, INCLUDING PLEASURE OF SOCIAL INTERACTION
ETHOLOGICAL CRITIQUE: 1.) THE THEORY IS INCOMPLETE BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY SOCIAL INTERACTIONS ARE SO PLEASURABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE
2.) THEORY CAN'T EXPLAIN ATTACHMENT IN ABUSED INFANTS
ATTACHMENT THEORY
2.) COGNITIVE-DEVELOPMENTAL MODELS: a.) ATTACHMENT AS INVOLVING COGNITIVE
MODEL (SCHEMA) OF "MOMMY & ME"; IF SEPARATED, BABY BECOMES FEARFUL AND DISTRESSED BECAUSE OF DISCREPANCY WITH SCHEMA OF 'MOMMY & ME'
b.) ATTACHMENT INVOLVES INTERNAL WORKING MODEL OF MOTHER'S TYPICAL BEHAVIOR; the IWM is a cognitive model of relationships based on relationship with mother as a prototype
ATTACHMENT THEORY
2.) COGNITIVE-DEVELOPMENTAL MODELS: CRITIQUE: CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE
AFFECTIVE INTENSITY OF ATTACHMENT PHENOMENA
WHY NOT DEVELOP SUCH SCHEMAS ABOUT BOOKS OR TOYS?
WHY SHOULD VIOLATING A SCHEMA OF "MOMMY AND ME" WHEN MOM LEAVES RESULT IN SUCH INTENSE DYSPHORIA, BUT VIOLATION OF OTHER SCHEMAS IS NO BIG DEAL?
ETHOLOGICAL THEORY OF ATTACHMENT: JOHN BOWLBY
A HYBRID THEORY: (1) BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS (2) LEARNING (3) COGNITIVE SCHEMES
Ethological Theory of Attachment: Biological Systems
1.) ATTACHMENT AS AN ADAPTATION ADAPTATION = A BEHAVIOR OR
MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURE DESIGNED BY NATURAL SELECTION IN ORDER TO PERFORM A PARTICULAR FUNCTION
FUNCTION OF ATTACHMENT IS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR HELPLESS INFANTS.
ATTACHMENT IS AN ADAPTATION DESIGNED BY NATURAL SELECTION TO KEEP THE BABY CLOSE TO THE MOTHER AS A SOURCE OF PROTECTION; IT IS A PROXIMITY MAINTAINING SYSTEM
Ethological Theory of Attachment: Biological Systems
2.) ETHOLOGICAL IDEA OF 'NATURAL CLUE' = AN INNATE CONNECTION BETWEEN A STIMULUS AND AN AFFECTIVE (EVALUATIVE) RESPONSE STIMULUS AFFECTIVE, EVALUATIVE
RESPONSE S R+ (CONTACT COMFORT,
AFFECTIONATE TOUCHING, MUTUAL GAZING AND SMILING) SWEET TASTES
S R -- (MOTHER ABSENT; STRANGER PRESENT; BITTER TASTES)
Ethological Theory of Attachment: Biological Systems
Natural Clues: THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE
STIMULUS AND THE AFFECTIVE RESPONSE IS INNATE, UNLEARNED;
Bottom line: BABIES COME INTO THE WORLD WITH LIKES AND DISLIKES
Ethological Theory of Attachment: Biological Systems
3.) MOTHER AND BABY ARE BIOLOGICALLY PROGRAMMED FOR SOCIAL INTERACTION a.) BABIES' BEHAVIORS FOR MAINTAINING
CONTACT: CRYING, LOCOMOTION, "MOLDING TO MOTHER'S BODY";
b.) FOR FACILITATING INTERACTION: APPEARANCE OF BABY, SMILING,VOCALIZING, MAKING EYE CONTACT
SOCIAL INTERACTION IS INNATELY PLEASURABLE FOR MOTHER AND BABY(INVOLVES NATURAL CLUES)
Ethological Theory of Attachment: Cognition and Learning
1.) MOTHER AS SECURE BASE FOR EXPLORATION:THE SET POINT: Changes with Development and with
the Situation
MOTHER WITHIN SET POINT: BABY EXPLORES
M MOTHER EXCEEDS SET POINT: ATTACHMENT
BEHAVIORS TRIGGERED, EXPLORATION CEASES
B
M
B
Ethological Theory of Attachment: Cognition and Learning
DISCRETE SYSTEMS IDEA: ATTACHMENT SYSTEM INTERACTS WITH
THE EXPLORATION SYSTEM, THE PLAY SYSTEM, AND OTHER SYSTEMS. IF SAFE, THEN PLAY, EXPLORE IF STRANGER IS PRESENT, THEN
STOP PLAY, LOOK FOR MOTHER IF HUNGRY, STOP PLAY AND
EXPLORATION, SEEK FOOD
Ethological Theory of Attachment: Cognition and Learning
2.) INTERNAL WORKING MODEL (IWM) OF MOTHER = A MODEL (SCHEMA) OF WHAT MOTHER IS LIKE a.) BUILT UP FROM EXPERIENCE
(LEARNING) b.) EMPHASIS ON SENSITIVITY AND
RESPONSIVITY c.) RESULTS IN A MODEL OF FUTURE
RELATIONSHIPS; RESISTANT TO CHANGE
Ethological Theory of Attachment: Cognition and Learning
IWM FOR A (AVOIDANT) CHILD: PEOPLE ARE NOT AVAILABLE WHEN I NEED HELP
IWM FOR B (SECURE) CHILD: PEOPLE WILL BE SENSITIVE AND RESPONSIVEWHEN I NEED HELP
IWM FOR C (AMBIVALENT, RESISTANT) CHILD: PEOPLE ARE UNRELIABLE WHEN I NEED HELP; SOMETIMES THEY ARE RESPONSIVE,
SOMETIMES NOT.
EVOLUTIONARILY EXPECTED ENVIRONMENT
CHILD IS BORN WITH “EXPECTATIONS” ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT. Expectations can be physical (oxygen, food) or
psychological (adequate mother) IF EXPECTATIONS MET, THEN THE CHILD IS HAPPY,
DEVELOPMENT IS NORMAL IF EXPECTATIONS ARE NOT MET, THEN THE CHILD
IS UNHAPPY, DEVELOPMENT IS PATHOLOGICAL
THE BIOLOGY OF ATTACHMENT IS UNIVERSAL (NORMATIVE) (SPECIES-TYPICAL), BUT ATTACHMENT STATUS IS THE RESULT OF ENVIRONMENTAL VARIATION (IDIOGRAPHIC DEVELOPMENT)
ENVIRONMENT OF EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTEDNESS
THE ENVIRONMENT OF EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTEDNESS (EEA) IS THE ENVIRONMENT THAT HUMANS EVOLVED IN AND WHICH PRESENTED THE PROBLEMS SOLVED BY OUR ADAPTATIONS. Example: THE HUMAN EEA INCLUDED
ENVIRONMENTS WITH PREDATORS AND OTHER DANGERS TO INFANTS.
ATTACHMENT EVOLVED IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THESE PROBLEMS.
IT SOLVED THE PROBLEM BY MAKING THE BABY WANT TO STAY CLOSE TO MOM.
SENSITIVE PERIODS FOR ATTACHMENT
ISOLATION STUDIES WITH RHESUS MACAQUES: ISOLATION FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF LIFE RESULTS IN "SUICIDALLY" AGGRESSIVE ANIMALS. FEMALES WHO ARE ISOLATED BECOME ABUSIVE MOTHERS
SPECIES DIFFERENCES: CRAB-EATING MACAQUES AND WOLVES SHOW MINIMAL DYSFUNCTION AS A RESULT OF ISOLATION.
SENSITIVE PERIODS FOR ATTACHMENT
THE TIZARD ORPHANAGE STUDY: AVERAGE 1 DIFFERENT CAREGIVER per MONTH
AFTER ADOPTION AT AGES 2-4), OBSERVED AT AGE 8:
1.) MORE BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS—DISOBEDIENCE, LYING, REJECTED BY OTHER CHILDREN;
2.) "AFFECTIONLESS PSYCHOPATHY"—SUPERFICIAL OVERFRIENDLINESS TOWARD ADULTS
MONOTROPY VERSUS MULTIPLE ATTACHMENTS THE IDEA OF AN ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY INDEPENDENCE OF ATTACHMENT STATUS WITH
MOTHERS AND FATHERS
ISSUES IN ATTACHMENT RESEARCH
1.) ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN CAREGIVER CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTACHMENT STATUS: SENSITIVE, RESPONSIVE, AFFECTIONATE CAREGIVING ASSOCIATED WITH SECURE ATTACHMENT;
CHILD ABUSE IS ASSOCIATED WITH INSECURE ATTACHMENT
2.) STABILITY: DEPENDS ON SITUATION: a.) LESS IF THERE IS STRESS OR OTHER SOURCES OF
CHANGE b.) INSTABILITY CAN RESULT IN 'RENEGOTIATION'
OF ATTACHMENT STATUS
ISSUES IN ATTACHMENT RESEARCH
3.) PREDICTIVE VALIDITY:
a.) PRESCHOOL: SOCIAL COMPETENCE, POSITIVE AFFECT, COMPLIANCE; "EGO RESILIENT" = ADAPTABLE AND FLEXIBLE IN CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES
b.) LATER CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENCE: CLOSER FRIENDSHIPS
c.) AVOIDANT INFANTS MORE LIKELY TO BE AGGRESSIVE
TEMPERAMENT AND ATTACHMENT
a.) KAGAN: BEHAVIORAL INHIBITION SYSTEM EXPLAINS VARIATION IN ATTACHMENT CLASSIFICATION
b.) OTHER SYSTEMS? SOCIABILITY/POSITIVE EMOTIONALITY, REACTIVITY
Comparing warmth and attachment
WARMTH Security of ATTACHMENT 1. Assessment Observation, Questionnaire Strange Situation
2. Emotions Love, Sympathy, Empathy Felt Security or Anxiety 3. Function Pair-bonding, Nurturance, Protection
Investment in Children Proximity Maintenance 4. Mechanism Physiological reward system IWM (Cognitive) 5. Environmental Parental warmth Sensitivity &
influences Responsiveness 6. Heritable Yes No (Temperament may
influence) 7. Five Factor Model Yes, Factor II No 8. Sex Differences Yes (females > males) No 9. Distribution Among Pair-bonding rare Very common
Primates