情节模拟对预期伴侣反应性及依恋安全感的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00982

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

当依恋对象不在身边时, 个体可以通过内部表征的方式通达依恋对象的可得与反应性, 获得依恋安全感。然而, 现有研究对内部表征通达途径的考察忽略了情节模拟的作用。该研究采用实验组控制组前后测设计, 考察是否可以通过依恋相关的情节模拟通达依恋对象的可得与反应性, 帮助个体获得依恋安全感。研究招募正处于恋爱关系中且恋爱时长超过6个月的大学生46名。前测评定依恋相关的困境情境; 3天后实验组被试进行依恋相关的情节模拟任务, 控制组被试进行情境结果的撰写任务, 并再次对情境进行评定。结果发现, 相比于控制组, 情节模拟组预期伴侣的反应性和依恋安全感有更大提升。以上的研究结果表明, 依恋相关的情节模拟可以通达伴侣可得与反应性并帮助个体获得依恋安全感。

关键词: 成人依恋, 依恋控制系统, 情节模拟, 伴侣反应性, 依恋安全感

Abstract:

The control-system model of attachment is the most commonly used model to characterize the function of the adult attachment system. It posits that the way for individuals to attain security is to access information on the availability and responsiveness of the attachment figure. According to previous attachment theory, when the attachment figure is absent, the information related to their availability and responsiveness is acquired by accessing the secure base script. However, the function of episodic representation is overlooked during this process. Inspired by the research on episodic simulation and attachment theory, we hypothesized that episodic simulation is an effective episodic representation that could help individuals access information on their partner's availability and responsiveness, and attain security in the attachment control system.

This study investigated whether episodic simulation could promote the expected responsiveness of a partner and attachment security through an experiment. A total of 46 young adults currently involved in a romantic relationship for more than six months were recruited as participants. All of the tasks were arranged into two sessions. In session 1, the participants completed a scale related to attachment orientations, then rated six scenarios related to distressful situations that frequently occurred in close relationships from four aspects, namely, distressful feeling, willingness to ask one's partner for help, expected responsiveness of one's partner, and state attachment security. Three days later, the participants were randomly arranged into an experimental group and a control group to complete the tasks of session 2. For each distressful situation, participants in the experimental group needed to simulate and write down how they asked their partner for help and how they would solve the distressing problem with the help of their partner. Participants in the control group needed to write down the possible outcomes when the situation happened in a regular couple. Subsequently, all participants rated the situation again from the four aspects in session 1.

The results revealed no rating differences between the two groups in the pre-test. In the post-test, the experimental group had higher ratings in expected responsiveness of their partner and state attachment security compared with the control. When considering the changes from the pre-test to the post-test in each rating (calculated using the scores in the post-test minus that in the pre-test), we found the promotion in expected responsiveness of partners significantly correlated with the promotion in state attachment security. Moreover, the experimental group had higher promotions in their rating of expected responsiveness of their partner and state attachment security, as well as higher reduction in state attachment avoidance, compared with the control group. However, no group differences were observed in the rating changes related to distressful feelings, willingness to ask one's partner for help, and state attachment anxiety. All of the results were the same after controlling for attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety, which are rooted in individuals' stable attachment script.

The results indicated that episodic simulation could function independently of the attachment script in the attachment control system. The episodic simulation could help individuals access information related to the responsiveness of their partner and attain security. This study provided a supplement for the attachment control-system model.

Key words: adult attachment, control-system model of attachment, episodic simulation, responsiveness of partner, attachment security

中图分类号:

曹贤才, 王大华, 王岩. (2020). 情节模拟对预期伴侣反应性及依恋安全感的影响. 心理学报, 52(8), 982-992.

CAO Xiancai, WANG Dahua, WANG Yan. (2020). The effects of episodic simulation on expected responsiveness of partner and attachment security. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(8), 982-992.

图/表 6

参考文献 50

[1]	Alea, N., & Bluck, S. (2007). I'll keep you in mind: The intimacy function of autobiographical memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(8), 1091-1111.
[2]	Baccus, J. R., Baldwin, M. W., & Packer, D. J. (2004). Increasing implicit self-esteem through classical conditioning. Psychological Science, 15(7), 498-502. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00708.x URL pmid: 15200636
[3]	Barsics, C., van der Linden, M., & D'Argembeau, A. (2016). Frequency, characteristics, and perceived functions of emotional future thinking in daily life. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(2), 217-233.
[4]	Berntsen, D., & Bohn, A. (2010). Remembering and forecasting: The relation between autobiographical memory and episodic future thinking. Memory & Cognition, 38(3), 265-278. URL pmid: 20234017
[5]	Beyderman, I., & Young, M. A. (2016). Rumination and overgeneral autobiographical memory as mediators of the relationship between attachment and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 37-41.
[6]	Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: NY: Basic Books.
[7]	Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: NY: Basic Books.
[8]	Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: NY: Basic Books.
[9]	Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.). Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.
[10]	Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications(pp. 103-129). New York: NY: Guilford.
[11]	Brown, G. P., Macleod, A. K., Tata, P., & Goddard, L. (2002). Worry and the simulation of future outcomes. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 15(1), 1-17.
[12]	Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 141-154.
[13]	Cao, X., Madore, K. P., Wang, D., & Schacter, D. L. (2018). Remembering the past and imagining the future: Attachment effects on production of episodic details in close relationships. Memory, 26(8), 1140-1150.
[14]	Carnelley, K. B., & Rowe, A. C. (2007). Repeated priming of attachment security influences later views of self and relationships. Personal Relationships, 14(2), 307-320.
[15]	Collins, N. L., & Allard, L. M. (2004). Cognitive representations of attachment: The content and function of working models. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Ed.), Social cognition (pp. 75-101). Malden: MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.603 URL pmid: 19424447
[16]	Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of attachment: The structure and function of working models. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in adulthood(pp. 53-92). London: Jessica Kingsley..
[17]	Cusimano, A. M., & Riggs, S. A. (2013). Perceptions of interparental conflict, romantic attachment, and psychological distress in college students. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2(1), 45-59.
[18]	D'Argembeau, A., Renaud, O., & van Der Linden, M. (2011). Frequency, characteristics and functions of future-oriented thoughts in daily life. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 96-103. doi: 10.1002/acp.v25.1 URL
[19]	Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, J. (2011). Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 19-46. doi: 10.1037/a0021367 URL
[20]	Gaesser, B., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). Episodic simulation and episodic memory can increase intentions to help others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(12), 4415-4420. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1402461111 URL
[21]	Gallese, V. (2005). Embodied simulation: From neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 23-48. doi: 10.1007/s11097-005-4737-z URL
[22]	Gillath, O., Hart, J., Noftle, E. E., & Stockdale, G. D. (2009). Development and validation of a state adult attachment measure (SAAM). Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 362-373. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.009 URL
[23]	Jing, H. G., Madore, K. P., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Worrying about the future : An episodic specificity induction impacts problem solving, reappraisal, and well-being. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(4), 402-418.
[24]	Jing, H. G., Madore, K. P., & Schacter, D. L. (2017). Preparing for what might happen: An episodic specificity induction impacts the generation of alternative future events. Cognition, 169, 118-128. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.010 URL pmid: 28886407
[25]	Li, T. G., & Kato, K. (2006). Measuring adult attachment: Chinese Adaptation of the ECR Scale. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38(3), 399-406.
	[ 李同归, 加藤和生. (2006). 成人依恋的测量:亲密关系经历量表(ECR)中文版. 心理学报, 38(3), 399-406.]
[26]	Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Sapir-Lavid, Y., Yaakobi, E., Arias, K., Tal-Aloni, L., & Bor, G. (2003). Attachment theory and concern for others' welfare: Evidence that activation of the sense of secure base promotes endorsement of self-transcendence values. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(4), 299-312.
[27]	Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35(3), 53-152.
[28]	Mikulincer, M & Shaver, P. R. (2016). A model of attachment-system functioning and dynamics in adulthood. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.).Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change(2nd ed., pp. 27-46). New York: The Guilford Press.
[29]	Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 817-839. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.817 URL pmid: 16351370
[30]	Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Rom, E. (2011). The effects of implicit and explicit security priming on creative problem solving. Cognition and Emotion, 25(3), 519-531. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2010.540110 URL pmid: 21432691
[31]	Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Sapir-Lavid, Y., & Avihou-Kanza, N. (2009). What's inside the minds of securely and insecurely attached people? The secure-base script and its associations with attachment-style dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 615-633. doi: 10.1037/a0015649 URL pmid: 19785482
[32]	Rivkin, I. D., & Taylor, S. E. (1999). The effects of mental simulation on coping with controllable stressful events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(12), 1451-1462.
[33]	Rowe, A. C., Carnelley, K. B., Harwood, J., Micklewright, D., Russouw, L., Rennie, C. L., & Liossi, C. (2012). The effect of attachment orientation priming on pain sensitivity in pain-free individuals. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(4), 488-507.
[34]	Rowe, A., & Carnelley, K. B. (2003). Attachment style differences in the processing of attachment-relevant information: Primed-style effects on recall, interpersonal expectations, and affect. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 59-75.
[35]	Schacter, D. L. (2012). Adaptive constructive processes and the future of memory. American Psychologist, 67(8), 603-613. doi: 10.1037/a0029869 URL pmid: 23163437
[36]	Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: Remembering the past and imagining the future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 773-786. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2087 URL pmid: 17395575
[37]	Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2008). Episodic simulation of future events: Concepts, data, and applications. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 39-60.
[38]	Schacter, D. L., Benoit, R. G., & Szpunar, K. K. (2017). Episodic future thinking: Mechanisms and functions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 17, 41-50. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.06.002 URL pmid: 29130061
[39]	Seligman, M. E. P., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 119-141. doi: 10.1177/1745691612474317 URL pmid: 26172493
[40]	Szpunar, K. K., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Get real: Effects of repeated simulation and emotion on the perceived plausibility of future experiences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 323-327.
[41]	Szpunar, K. K., Spreng, R. N., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). A taxonomy of prospection: Introducing an organizational framework for future-oriented cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(52), 18414-18421.
[42]	Taylor, S. E., Pham, L. B., Rivkin, I. D., & Armor, D. A. (1998). Harnessing the imagination: Mental simulation, self-regulation, and coping. American Psychologist, 53(4), 429-439. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.53.4.429 URL pmid: 9572006
[43]	Taylor, S. E., & Schneider, S. K. (1989). Coping and the simulation of events. Social Cognition, 7(2), 174-194.
[44]	Tomlinson, J. M., Carmichael, C. L., Reis, H. T., & Aron, A. (2010). Affective forecasting and individual differences: Accuracy for relational events and anxious attachment. Emotion, 10(3), 447-453. doi: 10.1037/a0018701 URL pmid: 20515233
[45]	Vicary, A. M., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). Choose your own adventure: Attachment dynamics in a simulated relationship. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(9), 1279-1291. doi: 10.1177/0146167207303013 URL pmid: 17933741
[46]	Wang, Y. (2017). Attachment effects on memory of painful information over time: From the perspective of narrative anylasis (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Beijing Normal University, China.
	[ 王岩. (2017). 依恋系统对心痛事件记忆的影响及时程作用:内容分析的视角(博士学位论文). 北京师范大学.]
[47]	Waters, H. S., & Waters, E. (2006). The attachment working models concept: Among other things, we build script-like representations of secure base experiences. Attachment and Human Development, 8(3), 185-197. doi: 10.1080/14616730600856016 URL pmid: 16938702
[48]	Wei, M., Liao, K. Y., Ku, T., & Shaffer, P. A. (2011). Attachment, self‐compassion, empathy, and subjective well‐being among college students and community adults. Journal of Personality, 79(1), 191-221. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00677.x URL pmid: 21223269
[49]	Whitaker, D. J., Beach, S. R. H., Etherton, J., Wakefield, R., & Anderson, P. L. (1999). Attachment and expectations about future relationships: Moderation by accessibility. Personal Relationships, 6(1), 41-56.
[50]	Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131-134.

变量	实验组(n = 23)	控制组(n = 23)	t	p	d
困境感受	6.09 ± 1.20	5.40 ± 1.60	1.65	0.11	0.50
寻求支持意愿	6.51 ± 1.21	5.93 ± 1.40	1.48	0.15	0.45
预期伴侣反应性	6.41 ± 1.03	6.25 ± 1.16	0.51	0.61	0.15
状态依恋安全	5.41 ± 1.33	5.28 ± 1.47	0.31	0.76	0.09
状态依恋焦虑	5.74 ± 1.80	5.14 ± 1.72	1.16	0.25	0.35
状态依恋回避	5.64 ± 1.84	5.20 ± 2.28	0.72	0.47	0.22

变量	实验组(n = 23)	控制组(n = 23)	t	p	d
困境感受	6.09 ± 1.20	5.40 ± 1.60	1.65	0.11	0.50
寻求支持意愿	6.51 ± 1.21	5.93 ± 1.40	1.48	0.15	0.45
预期伴侣反应性	6.41 ± 1.03	6.25 ± 1.16	0.51	0.61	0.15
状态依恋安全	5.41 ± 1.33	5.28 ± 1.47	0.31	0.76	0.09
状态依恋焦虑	5.74 ± 1.80	5.14 ± 1.72	1.16	0.25	0.35
状态依恋回避	5.64 ± 1.84	5.20 ± 2.28	0.72	0.47	0.22

变量	实验组(n = 23)		控制组(n = 23)
变量	前测	后测	前测	后测
困境感受	6.09 ± 1.20	5.90 ± 1.23	5.40 ± 1.60	5.23 ± 1.53
寻求支持意愿	6.51 ± 1.21	6.93 ± 0.97	5.93 ± 1.40	6.12 ± 1.36
预期伴侣反应性	6.41 ± 1.03	7.20 ± 1.08	6.25 ± 1.16	6.32 ± 1.35
状态依恋安全	5.41 ± 1.33	6.44 ± 1.00	5.28 ± 1.47	5.12 ± 1.20
状态依恋焦虑	5.74 ± 1.80	5.63 ± 1.87	5.14 ± 1.72	5.33 ± 1.92
状态依恋回避	5.64 ± 1.84	4.65 ± 2.26	5.20 ± 2.28	5.41 ± 2.40

变量	实验组(n = 23)		控制组(n = 23)
变量	前测	后测	前测	后测
困境感受	6.09 ± 1.20	5.90 ± 1.23	5.40 ± 1.60	5.23 ± 1.53
寻求支持意愿	6.51 ± 1.21	6.93 ± 0.97	5.93 ± 1.40	6.12 ± 1.36
预期伴侣反应性	6.41 ± 1.03	7.20 ± 1.08	6.25 ± 1.16	6.32 ± 1.35
状态依恋安全	5.41 ± 1.33	6.44 ± 1.00	5.28 ± 1.47	5.12 ± 1.20
状态依恋焦虑	5.74 ± 1.80	5.63 ± 1.87	5.14 ± 1.72	5.33 ± 1.92
状态依恋回避	5.64 ± 1.84	4.65 ± 2.26	5.20 ± 2.28	5.41 ± 2.40

变量	1	2	3	4	5
1. 困境感受差异
2. 寻求意愿差异	0.55^***
3. 预期伴侣反应性差异	-0.14	0.05
4. 状态安全差异	-0.04	0.21	0.32^*
5. 状态焦虑差异	0.48^***	0.19	-0.28	-0.20
6. 状态回避差异	0.10	-0.10	-0.26	-0.06	0.17