At the Intersection of Social and Cognitive Development: Internal Working Models of Attachment in Infancy

Johnson, Susan C.; Dweck, Carol S.; Chen, Frances S.; Stern, Hilarie L.; Ok, Su-Jeong; Barth, Maria

doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01112.x

Cited by 100 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The attachment relationship influences expectations about how the world works and how people are supposed to behave and interact (Johnson et al, 2010). Most current research utilizes a two-dimensional model that views attachment as the result of both one's internal model of self (degree to which oneself is worthy of love) and others (degree to which others are worthy of trust; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).…”

Section: Attachmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attachment style and self-regulation: How our patterns in relationships reflect broader motivational styles

Blalock

Franzese

Machell

et al. 2015

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history: Received 6 April 2015 Received in revised form 10 July 2015 Accepted 14 July 2015 Available online 1 August 2015 Keywords: Self-regulation Regulatory focus Self-discrepancy Attachment Individuals orient themselves in relationships using different goals and preoccupations, often conceptualized as four distinct attachment styles (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Individuals also orient themselves in the social world more broadly using different motivational preferences and styles. Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987) and regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) are two frameworks used to conceptualize these motivational styles. In two studies we investigated the extent to which preoccupations in relationships reflected broader life goals. In Study 1, college participants reported attachment style and selfdiscrepancies (ideal and ought selves). In Study 2, community participants reported attachment style and regulatory focus (promotion and prevention orientations). Across two different samples, using distinct but complementary theoretical frameworks, we found a consistent pattern whereby a more approachoriented relationship orientation (secure attachment), was related to a more approach-oriented general life orientation (lower actual-ideal discrepancy and greater promotion focus). Interestingly, attachment style was unrelated to avoidance-oriented motivational styles. These results suggest that motivations within relationships may be specifically related to growth motivations in broader aspects of life.

show abstract

Section: Attachmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attachment style and self-regulation: How our patterns in relationships reflect broader motivational styles

Blalock

Franzese

Machell

et al. 2015

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the difficulties noted above, third-party tasks provide a valuable alternative for exploring infants' expectations about comforting responses. In seminal experiments, Johnson and her colleagues began to examine infants' expectations about caregivers' responsiveness to a crying baby in third-party tasks (Johnson, Dweck, & Chen, 2007;Johnson et al, 2010). In one VOE experiment, 13-month-olds were habituated to a computeranimated event involving a large red oval (the "adult") and a small blue oval (the "baby").…”

Section: Comforting Someone In Distressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological and sociomoral reasoning in infancy.

Baillargeon¹,

Scott²,

He³

et al. 2015

APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 1: Attitudes and Social Cognition.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionConsider the following scene: A man wearing a backpack is pacing leisurely back and forth in a large airport room. As he strolls, he occasionally crosses his arms, twirls the dangling straps of his backpack, or stuffs his hands in his pant pockets. At one point, he sits down, takes off his backpack, and removes from it a bag filled with assorted gummy bears; as he peers intently inside the bag, he selects and eats, one at a time, five red gummy bears.As adults, we would have no difficulty interpreting the man's actions. We might view his initial actions-pacing, crossing his arms, and so on-as intentional (as opposed to accidental) though not as directed toward any particular goal. In contrast, we might perceive his subsequent actions-removing the bag of gummy bears from his backpack and eating five red ones in succession-as both intentional and goal-directed. In analyzing these actions, we might build an explanation that attributes to the man a causally coherent set of motivational and epistemic mental states: He wants to eat gummy bears, he is particularly fond of red ones, and so when he spies one in the bag, he removes it and eats it.Next, consider a new scene: As the man is happily chewing on red gummy bears, he notices a second man approaching who is carrying two heavy suitcases. At this point, our scene might unfold according to different scenarios. In one, the first man greets the second man, offers to carry one of the suitcases, and holds out his bag of gummy bears. In another scenario, the first man continues to watch the second man but makes no move to approach him. In yet another scenario, the first man sticks out a leg to trip the second man, causing him to fall heavily.As adults, we would interpret and evaluate the first man's actions in the three scenarios very differently. In the first scenario, we might infer that the two men have a social group in common: They might be friends, coworkers, or relatives, for example. In the second scenario, we 3 would conclude that the two men are strangers. In both the first and second scenarios, we would view the first man's behavior as acceptable: Offering help and sharing food are expected prosocial behaviors in interactions with ingroup, but not outgroup, individuals. In contrast, the first man's behavior in the third scenario would seem to us beyond the pale: Unprovoked harmful actions, even against outgroup individuals, are generally viewed as unacceptable. We would categorize the first man as an antisocial lout, and we might file away distinctive characteristics as possible markers of a social group to be avoided in the future.Our discussion of the two scenes above illustrates the rich analyses that adults spontaneously engage in when watching others act. What are the developmental origins of these interpretations? Over the past 25 years, there has been a great deal of research on social cognition in infancy. This research can be roughly organized into two sets of questions that map neatly onto the two scenes above. First, when watching an agen...

show abstract

“…The mother's availability during these experiences forms a major part of the IWM the child will store (Johnson et al, 2010;Schuengel, De Schipper, & Sterkenburg, 2003). When a child has an IWM of the attachment figure as being available, responsive and accessible when needed, a secure attachment occurs.…”

Section: Internal Working Models In Attachment Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Bowlby (1969Bowlby ( /1982, the attachment system utilises cognitive components, specifically mental representations (internal working models [IWM's]), of the attachment figure, the self, and the environment during the child's interaction with the primary caregiver, the child's own actions, and the feedback the child receives from these actions (Cicchetti et al, 1993;Johnson et al, 2010). According to Cassidy (1993), these models are similar to cognitive maps (not permanent or static mental schemes, but flexible models) that permit successful navigation of an organism's environment (Brisch, 2002;Marvin & Britner, 2008;Mennen & O'Keefe, 2005).…”

Section: Internal Working Models In Attachment Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Bowlby (1969Bowlby ( /1982 stated "attachment theory is still growing: its potential and limitations remain unknown." Attachment theory now combines different contributions from ethology (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991;Bowlby, 1969Bowlby, /1982, developmental psychology (Bowlby, 1988(Bowlby, /2005Brisch, 2002;Bronfenbrenner, 1986;Kail & Cavanaugh, 2010;Marvin & Britner, 2008;Schore, 2001;Sroufe, Carlson, Levy, & Egeland, 1999), systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1986;Diamond, Diamond, & Hogue, 2007;Marvin & Stewart, 2008;O'Connor & Croft, 2001), object-relations theory (Ainsworth,1969), evolutionary psychology (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2007;Marvin & Britner, 2008;O'Connor & Croft, 2001), cognitive information theory (Bowlby, 1969(Bowlby, /1982Johnson, Dweck, Chen, Stern, Ok, & Barth, 2010) and psychoanalysis (Bowlby, 1988(Bowlby, /2005Bretherton & Munholland, 2008) to name a few. The contributions of these fields is as follows: ethology emphasis e the critical developmental issue, that humans have pre-adapted characteristics that predispose them to form attachment in order to survive at each development point; developmental psychology, amongst other things, opened attachment research up to developmental processes and how these processes contribute to children's behaviour in the attachment relationship(s); systems theory drawn attention to regulatory, environmental, biological, and exploratory systems for expanding the scope of attachment theory and research and emphasising that no individual can be understood outside the context in which they function; objectrelations theory made its contribution through the theory of interpersonal relatedness, concerned with the crucial role played by the self and object representations in the conduct of close human relationships; evolutionary psychology made its impact through highlighting the biological bases of attachment behaviour; psychoanalysis contributed by increasingly emphasising the quality of significant early relationships since they are seen to represent the prototype for later interpersonal re...…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Child-caregiver attachment, self-evaluation and cognitive development in a group of

Deventer

2011

SAJCE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primary attachment relationships have an enormous influence on later cognitive development, socio-emotional development and psychological health. Up to date, no research explored the correlations between the quality of the child-caregiver attachment relationship (AQ), self-evaluation (SE), and cognitive development (CD) of five-year-old pre-school children. In accordance, the aim of this study was to explore the correlation between these three variables. Ten Afrikaans speaking mother-child dyads from white, two parent, first marriage families participated. Participants were assessed with the Pictorial Self-Evaluation Scale (PSES), The Observed Attachment Behavior Q-set (AQS), and The Griffiths Mental Development Scales; Extended Revised (GMDS-ER) in a single study in a South African context. Results indicate that a positive, medium to high practical significant correlations do exist between the reliabilities. However, because of the small number of infants tested, it was difficult in this initial sample to draw firm conclusions about the statistical significance of the results. Nonetheless the results obtained in this pilot study are very encouraging and holds great value for further investigation.

show abstract

At the Intersection of Social and Cognitive Development: Internal Working Models of Attachment in Infancy

Cited by 100 publications

References 24 publications

Attachment style and self-regulation: How our patterns in relationships reflect broader motivational styles

Attachment style and self-regulation: How our patterns in relationships reflect broader motivational styles

Psychological and sociomoral reasoning in infancy.

Child-caregiver attachment, self-evaluation and cognitive development in a group of

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About