1. Attachment: An enduring emotional tie that unites one person to another, over time and across space (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978)

2. Attachment Behaviors: –Behaviors that function to bring the infant/child physically closer to the caregiver Exs: crying, smiling, clinging, following

3. Evidence (Ethological Attachment Theory): Animals that stray from a group are much more vulnerable to attack Attachment behavior in animals and humans: –Occurs more frequently in those most vulnerable to predators (e.g., the young) –Increases in frightening situations

4. Individual Differences in Attachment Security Infancy: Strange Situation Mother and infant in laboratory playroom Stranger enters, talks to mothers, engages infant Mother leaves (stranger stays) Mother returns (stranger leaves) Mother leaves (baby alone) Stranger returns Mother returns

5. Secure (B) –About 60-65% of American middle-class samples –May or may not be distressed by separation –Respond positively to parent’s return If distressed by separation, easily comforted by parent and able to return to play (parent = secure base)

6. Insecure-Avoidant (A) –15-20% of American middle-class samples –Usually not distressed by separation from parent –Avoid the parent during reunion (to different degrees)

7. Insecure-Resistant or Ambivalent (C) –10-15% of American middle-class samples –Usually distressed by separation –Show a combination of angry, resistant behavior and proximity-seeking behavior during reunion with parent –Have difficulty being comforted by parent and returning to play

8. Insecure-Disorganized (D) –10-15% of American middle-class samples –More common in infants who have been maltreated –Infants’ behavior does not reflect an organized strategy for dealing with the stress of separation Contradictory behaviors Expressions of fear or disorientation when caregiver returns

9. Influences on Infant Attachment Security According to attachment theory, the major influence is parental behavior (especially sensitivity) –Sensitivity: Consistent, prompt, and appropriate responses to infant signals

10. Infants develop expectations about how caregivers are likely to respond to their signals Expectations form the basis of an internal working model –IWM: Expectations about the nature of relationships and beliefs about the self

11. Expectations result from the quality of mother-infant interaction: –Sensitive Care: Infants expect caregiver to be available and responsive –Insensitive Care: Infants expect caregiver to be unresponsive/inconsistent or rejecting

12. Infants’ behavior in the Strange Situation reflects their expectations (early IWM) –Secure infants expect caregiver to be responsive –Insecure infants expect caregiver to be unresponsive/inconsistent or rejecting

13. Evidence for Parental Behavior as the Major Influence on Infant Attachment Security: –Parental sensitivity is correlated with infant attachment security, but the correlation is not strong Disagreement about the importance of parental sensitivity in influencing attachment security –Other factors also affect attachment security

14. Temperament and Attachment Security –Some studies find that insecure infants are higher in distress during the first year of life Difficult to know if this reflects temperament or parental behavior –In general, temperament is not strongly related to attachment security

15. Attachment and Later Development A secure attachment in infancy is related to: –More positive interactions with parents in the second year of life –More positive relationships with others (e.g., day care teachers, peers) when children are toddlers and preschoolers

16. Infant attachment security is not strongly related to the quality of older children’s relationships (in most studies) –Debate about how strongly infant attachment security relates to later social development

17. Why does infant attachment security predict later behavior (at least short- term)?

18. Attachment Theory Perspective: Attachment security reflects infants’ internal working models

19. IWM generalizes to new relationships –Children with secure attachments: Expect others to respond positively to them –Children with insecure attachments: Expect others to respond negatively to them (e.g., by ignoring or rejecting them)

20. IWMs tend to be self-perpetuating –Children behave in ways that elicit certain responses from others –Others’ responses confirm children’s internal working models

21. Continuity of Care Perspective: Parents who are sensitive in infancy are likely to remain sensitive as children grow older Sensitivity is related to secure attachment in infancy and to more positive adjustment as children get older

22. Secure attachment in infancy does not CAUSE more positive later adjustment (no IWM)

23. Relevant Evidence: Most evidence indicates that infant attachment classifications do not predict later behavior if quality of caregiving does not remain stable

24. Parent-Child Relationships After Infancy Baumrind’s Parenting Styles: –Parental behavior varies along at least two dimensions Sensitivity/Acceptance Control (“Demandingness”)

25. Authoritarian High control Low acceptance/responsiveness Power-assertive discipline Ex: “Do it because I say so” More likely to use physical punishment

26. Authoritative High acceptance/responsiveness Moderate control –Set clear standards and consistently enforce rules –Responsive to children’s needs and point of view

27. Discipline based on reasoning/explanation and less power-assertive punishment (e.g., “time out”, loss of privileges) –“It’s not ok to hit people because it hurts them.”

28. Permissive High acceptance/responsiveness Low control –Make few demands for mature behavior

29. Neglecting/Disengaged Low acceptance/responsiveness Low control Parents often overwhelmed by stress; have little time/energy for children

30. Authoritarian Childhood: Anxious Unhappy Dependent/Easily Frustrated (esp. girls) Hostile/Aggressive (esp. boys)

31. Authoritarian Adolescence: Poorer social skills and lower academic achievement than children of authoritative parents Better school performance and less problem behavior (e.g., drug use, truancy) than children of permissive or neglecting parents

32. Authoritative Childhood: –High self-esteem –High self-control –Generally positive mood

33. Authoritative Adolescence: –Good social skills –High academic achievement –Low in problem behaviors (e.g., drug use, truancy)

34. Permissive Childhood: Low self-control Overly demanding and dependent on adults

35. Permissive Adolescence: –Low academic achievement –More problem behaviors (e.g., truancy; drug use)

36. Neglecting/Disengaged Childhood: –Low self-control –Low self-esteem –Disturbed attachment relationships (disorganized)

37. Neglecting/Disengaged Adolescence: –Low academic achievement –Poor social skills –Many problem behaviors Truancy, drug use, delinquency, sexual promiscuity, depression

38. Issues Related to Parenting Research Bidirectional Influences How do children’s characteristics and behavior affect parenting style? General agreement that socialization processes are bidirectional rather than unidirectional –Parental behavior influences children’s behavior, but children’s behavior also affects parental behavior

39. Example: Infants and children with “difficult” temperament characteristics receive less “optimal” parenting under some conditions Less “optimal” parenting may increase children’s problem behaviors

40. Correlation vs. Causation Most research on parenting styles is correlational –Can’t randomly assign kids to different kinds of parents –Therefore, can’t infer cause-and-effect relationships Can’t say that parenting style CAUSES children’s behavior (positive or negative)

41. However, some research has examined experimental parenting interventions –Designed to improve parenting behavior Use random assignment—some families receive the intervention and others do not Can infer cause-and-effect relationships

42. Experimental parenting interventions have shown improvements in parenting behavior and improvements in children’s adjustment

43. Parenting styles (and their “effects”) may not generalize to all ethnic/cultural groups Example: –Chinese parents more likely to be classified as authoritarian (high control) –Authoritative parenting and authoritarian parenting show equally positive relations with children’s adjustment (for 1 st generation Chinese-American children)