依恋对象回应方式对不同依恋类型幼儿支持提供预期修正的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00455

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

依恋对象的敏感性回应是儿童安全依恋发展的重要前因。研究采用改编版依恋预期范式考察实时互动情境中依恋对象确定性和概率性回应对幼儿支持提供预期及预期修正的影响。结果发现：相对不安全型依恋幼儿, 初始预期中安全型幼儿更多预期依恋对象会向依恋者提供支持; 幼儿能够基于依恋对象的确定性和概率性回应一致地修正对该对象是否提供支持的预期。同时, 低水平回应对幼儿预期修正的影响高于高水平回应。研究表明5岁左右幼儿能够基于实时互动中依恋对象的回应信息修正其对该依恋对象的预期, 这对理解幼儿依恋表征的发展具有重要启示。

关键词: 支持提供预期, 依恋预期修正, 回应方式, 依恋类型, 幼儿

Abstract:

The sensitivity of caregivers plays a crucial role in developing secure attachment relationships. According to the attachment theory, children internalize their interactions with attachment figures as the Internal Working Models (IWMs), which guide their information processing and behavioral performance later in intimate relationships. As a basic structure of IWMs, the attachment script is conceptualized as a set of attachment expectations. However, little has been known about how young children represent those attachment interactions. Studies have found that attachment figures’ response patterns are related to young children’s support-giving expectations. However, few studies have directly explored how attachment figures’ responses influence young children’s attachment expectations. The present study used a real-time interaction task to examine how attachment figures’ response patterns affected children’s expectations of attachment figures’ support-giving behavior and willingness.

In both experiments, the Attachment Expectation Task (AET) was used to manipulate attachment figures’ response patterns, and the Attachment Story Completion Test (ASCT) was used to measure children’s attachment styles. Experiment 1 adopted a 2 (response pattern: response/non-response) x 2 (attachment style: secure/insecure) mixed design to investigate how attachment figures’ response pattern influenced children’s support-giving behavior and willingness expectations under deterministic conditions. A total of 161 children 5~6 years of age were recruited (82 boys, mean age =5.66 ± 0.29 years). Experiment 2 adopt a 3 (response pattern: 20% / 50% / 80%) x 2 (attachment style: secure/insecure) mixed design to investigate the effects of response pattern on children’s support-giving expectations under probabilistic response conditions. A total of 95 children 5~6 years of age participated (45 boys, mean = 5.46 ± 0.29 years). Participants in both experiments were asked to finish the AET and the ASCT in two sessions.

The results showed: (1) in new intimate relationships, secure children were more likely to expect attachment figures would and were more willing to provide support than insecure children (Experiments 1 & 2); (2) children’s expectation of support-giving behavior and willingness increased under response condition but decreased under non-response condition (Experiment 1); (3) children’s expectation of support-giving behavior and willingness significantly decreased under 20% and 50% response condition, however, under 80% response condition, only expectation of support-giving behavior decreased significantly (Experiment 2); (4) low-level response (non-response and 20% response condition) had a higher effect on children’s expectation revision of behavior and willingness than high-level response (response, 80%, and 50% condition) (Experiment 1 and 2).

The results indicate that attachment styles influence 5-and 6-year-old children’s initial attachment support- giving expectations for new attachment figures, and they can revise these expectations based on attachment figures’ response patterns. The current study enriches the empirical evidence on how attachment figures’ response influences children’s attachment expectation revision in interpersonal interactions and extends our understanding of the organization and development of attachment representation. These findings also have important implications for the mechanism underlying secure attachment development in children.

Key words: support-giving expectation, attachment expectation revision, response pattern, attachment style, young children

中图分类号:

B844

贾成龙, 吴婷, 孙莉, 秦金亮. (2023). 依恋对象回应方式对不同依恋类型幼儿支持提供预期修正的影响. 心理学报, 55(3), 455-468.

JIA Chenglong, WU Ting, SUN Li, QIN Jinliang. (2023). The effects of attachment figure’s response pattern on the support-giving expectation revision of young children with different attachment styles. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(3), 455-468.

图/表 8

表3 各条件C-BE和C-WE的原始均值(SD)

因变量	20%回应条件		50%回应条件		80%回应条件
因变量	安全型	不安全型	安全型	不安全型	安全型	不安全型
C-BE	−0.34(0.30)	−0.26(0.37)	−0.05(0.31)	−0.06(0.24)	0.06(0.34)	0.07(0.38)
C-WE	−0.70(0.75)	−0.65(0.85)	−0.21(1.05)	−0.02(0.85)	0.15(1.00)	0.33(0.87)

图5 不同条件下幼儿依恋行为预期改变量和意愿预期改变量注: “安全”为安全型幼儿, “不安全”为不安全型幼儿; 误差线表示±1个标准误; *** p < 0.001; ns表示没有达到显著。

图1 一试次实验任务流程示意图

表1 各条件下行为预期与意愿预期的均值(SD)

因变量	基线条件		回应条件		无回应条件
因变量	安全型	不安全型	安全型	不安全型	安全型	不安全型
行为预期	0.82(0.24)	0.72(0.25)	0.92(0.18)	0.92(0.19)	0.11(0.20)	0.16(0.29)
意愿预期	3.32(0.66)	3.04(0.62)	3.50(0.64)	3.49(0.52)	1.92(0.69)	2.04(0.78)

图2 不同条件下幼儿依恋行为预期和意愿预期注：“安全”为安全型幼儿, “不安全”为不安全型幼儿; 误差线表示±1个标准误; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001。

图3 不同条件下幼儿依恋行为预期改变量和意愿预期改变量注：“安全”为安全型幼儿, “不安全”为不安全型幼儿; 误差线表示±1个标准误; * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001; ns表示没有达到显著。

表2 各条件下行为和意愿预期的均值(SD)

因变量	20%回应		50%回应		80%回应
因变量	安全型	不安全型	安全型	不安全型	安全型	不安全型
行为预期	0.38(0.20)	0.39(0.26)	0.55(0.21)	0.54(0.22)	0.66(0.21)	0.57(0.29)
意愿预期	2.32(0.45)	2.29(0.62)	2.62(0.53)	2.67(0.62)	2.94(0.59)	2.82(0.70)

图4 不同条件下幼儿依恋行为预期和意愿预期注: 图中, “安全”为安全型幼儿, “不安全”为不安全型幼儿; 误差线表示±1个标准误; * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001。

参考文献 53

[1]	Ainsworth M. D. S., Blehar M. C., Waters E., & Wall S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Erlbaum.
[2]	Bakermans-Kranenburg M. J., van IJzendoorn M. H., & Juffer F. (2003). Less is more: Meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 129(2), 195-215. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.195 pmid: 12696839
[3]	Bao H.-W.-S. (2020). bruceR: Broadly useful collections and extensions of R functions [R package]. https://github.com/psychbruce/bruceR
[4]	Belsky J., & Jaffee S. (2006). The multiple determinants of parenting. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 38-85). Wiley.
[5]	Belsky J., Rovine M., & Taylor D. G. (1984). The Pennsylvania Infant and Family Development Project: III. The origins of individual differences in infant-mother attachment: Maternal and infant contributions. Child Development, 55(3), 718-728. pmid: 6734313
[6]	Bernier A., Matte-Gagne C., Belanger M. E., & Whipple N. (2014). Taking stock of two decades of attachment transmission gap: Broadening the assessment of maternal behavior. Child Development, 85(5), 1852-1865. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12236 pmid: 24611791
[7]	Bosmans G., Bakermans-Kranenburg M. J. Vervliet B., Verhees M. W. F. T., & van Ijzendoorn M. H. (2020). A learning theory of attachment: Unraveling the black box of attachment development. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 113, 287-298. doi: S0149-7634(19)31012-7 pmid: 32276142
[8]	Bosmans G., Braet C., Heylen J., & de Raedt R. (2015). Children’s attentional processing of mother and proximity seeking. PLoS One, 10(4), e0124038. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124038 URL
[9]	Bosmans G., Koster E. H. W., Vandevivere E., Braet C., & de Raedt R. (2013). Young adolescent’s confidence in maternal support: Attentional bias moderates the link between attachment-related expectations and behavioral problems. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37(4), 829-839. doi: 10.1007/s10608-013-9526-3 URL
[10]	Bosmans G., Waters T. E. A., Finet C., de Winter S., & Hermans D. (2019). Trust development as an expectancy- learning process: Testing contingency effects. PLoS One, 14(12), e0225934. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225934 URL
[11]	Bowlby J. (1969/ 1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). Basic Books.
[12]	Bretherton I. (1990). Open communication and internal working models:The role in the development of attachment relationships. In R. Thompson(Ed.), Socioemotional development: The nebraska symposion on motivation (pp. 57-113). University of Nebraska Press.
[13]	Bretherton I., & Munholland K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships:Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy, P. R. Shaver, J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 102-127). Guilford Press.
[14]	Bretherton I., Ridgeway D., & Cassidy J. (1990). Assessing internal working models of the attachment relationship:An attachment story completion task for 3-year-olds. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings(Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 273-308). University of Chicago Press.
[15]	Clark A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181-204. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000477 URL
[16]	Coan J. A., & Sbarra D. A. (2015). Social baseline theory: The social regulation of risk and effort. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 87-91. pmid: 25825706
[17]	Corriveau K. H., Meints K., & Harris P. L. (2009). Early tracking of informant accuracy and inaccuracy. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 331-342. doi: 10.1348/026151008X310229 URL
[18]	de Houwer J. (2009). The propositional approach to associative learning as an alternative for association formation models. Learning & Behavior, 37(1), 1-20.
[19]	de Winter S., Bosmans G., & Salemink E. (2017). Exploring the causal effect of interpretation bias on attachment expectations. Child Development, 88(1), 131-140. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12587 pmid: 27346554
[20]	de Winter S., Vandevivere E., Waters T. E. A., Braet C., & Bosmans G. (2016). Lack of trust in maternal support is related to negative interpretations of ambiguous maternal behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 146-151. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0197-4 URL
[21]	DiYanni C., & Kelemen D. (2008). Using a bad tool with good intention: Young children’s imitation of adults’ questionable choices. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 101(4), 241-261. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.05.002 pmid: 18586262
[22]	Dweck C. S. (2008). Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 391-394. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00612.x URL
[23]	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 pmid: 21219056
[24]	Fearon R. M. P. & Belsky J. (2016). Precursors of attachment security. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3nd ed., pp. 507-533). Guilford Press.
[25]	Gloger-Tippelt G., & Kappler G. (2016). Narratives of attachment in middle childhood: Do gender, age, and risk- status matter for the quality of attachment? Attachment & Human Development, 18(6), 570-595.
[26]	Gopnik A., Glymour C., Sobel D., Schulz L., Kushnir T., & Danks D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111(1), 3-32. pmid: 14756583
[27]	Haver K. G. & Justice E. M. (1993). Children's understanding of intentions, emotions, and intention-emotion relationships. Modern Psychological Studies, 1(2), 7-12.
[28]	Huang T., & Lin C. (2003). Reviews on the studies of children’s trait-understanding in the research area of theory of mind. Advances in Psychological Science, 11(2), 184-192.
	[ 黄天元, 林崇德. (2003). 关于儿童特质理解的心理理论研究. 心理科学进展, 11(2), 184-192.]
[29]	Hughes B. L., Zaki J., & Ambady N. (2017). Motivation alters impression formation and related neural systems. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(1), 49-60. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw147 pmid: 27798250
[30]	Jia C., Liu T., Sun L., & Qin J. (2020). The duality of attachment pattern: Trait attachment and state attachment. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(4), 626-637. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00626 URL
	[ 贾成龙, 刘廷廷, 孙莉, 秦金亮. (2020). 个体依恋特征的二重性:特质性依恋与状态性依恋. 心理科学进展, 28(4), 626-637.]
[31]	Johnson S. C., & Chen F. S. (2011). Socioemotional information processing in human infants: From genes to subjective construals. Emotion Review, 3(2), 169-178. doi: 10.1177/1754073910387945 URL
[32]	Johnson S. C., Dweck C. S., & Chen F. S. (2007). Evidence for infants' internal working models of attachment. Psychological Science, 18(6), 501-502. pmid: 17576262
[33]	Johnson S. C., Dweck C. S., Chen F. S., Stern H. L., Ok S.-J., & Barth M. (2010). At the intersection of social and cognitive development: Internal working models of attachment in infancy. Cognitive Science, 34(5), 807-825. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01112.x pmid: 21564237
[34]	Kushnir T., & Gopnik A. (2007). Conditional probability versus spatial contiguity in causal learning: Preschoolers use new contingency evidence to overcome prior spatial assumptions. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 186-196. pmid: 17201518
[35]	Lagattuta K. H., & Kramer H. J. (2021). Advanced emotion understanding: Children’s and adults’ knowledge that minds generalize from prior emotional events. Emotion, 21(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1037/emo0000694 URL
[36]	Lin Q., Wang Z., Lu S., Liang X., He Q., Wang Z., & Hu R. (2014). Internal working models of toddlers: A bridge from maternal sensitivity to toddlers’ attachment behaviors. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(3), 353-366. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00353 URL
	[ 林青, 王争艳, 卢珊, 梁熙, 贺琼, 王朝, 胡若时. (2014). 从母亲的敏感性到学步儿的依恋安全性:内部工作模式的桥梁作用. 心理学报, 46(3), 353-366.]
[37]	LoBue V. (2009). More than just another face in the crowd: Superior detection of threatening facial expressions in children and adults. Developmental Science, 12(2), 305-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00767.x pmid: 19143803
[38]	Marvin R. S. (1977). An ethological-cognitive model for the attenuation of mother-child attachment behavior. In T. M. Alloway, L. Krames, & P.Pliner(Eds.),Advances in the study of communication and affect: Attachment behavior(Vol. 3, pp. 25-60). Plenum Press.
[39]	Marvin R. S., Britner P. A., & Russell B. S. (2016). Normative development:The ontogeny of attachment in childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications(3nd ed., pp. 273-290). Guilford Press.
[40]	Mohammadzade Naghashan N., Mazaheri M., Gustafsson E., Sadeghi-Firoozabadi V., & Zabihzadeh A. (2021). Attachment and joint attention in infants: The role of expectation. Infancy, 26(2), 223-237. doi: 10.1111/infa.12382 pmid: 33471407
[41]	Olsson A., Knapska E., & Lindström B. (2020). The neural and computational systems of social learning. Nature Review Neuroscience, 21(4), 197-212. doi: 10.1038/s41583-020-0276-4 URL
[42]	Posada G., & Waters H. S. (2018). I. Introduction: The co-construction of mother-child attachment relationships in early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 83(4), 7-21. doi: 10.1111/mono.12388 pmid: 30520084
[43]	Rapp A. F., & Wilkening F. (2005). Children's recognition of the usefulness of a record: Distinguishing deterministic and probabilistic events. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2(4) 344-363.
[44]	Reyna V. F., & Brainerd C. J. (2011). Dual processes in decision making and developmental neuroscience: A fuzzy- trace model. Developmental Review, 31(2-3), 180-206.
[45]	Romberg A. R., & Saffran J. R. (2013). Expectancy learning from probabilistic input by infants. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 610.
[46]	Starling S. J., Reeder P. A., & Aslin R. N. (2018). Probability learning in an uncertain world: How children adjust to changing contingencies. Cognitive Development, 48, 105-116. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.008 pmid: 31031524
[47]	van den Boom D. (1990). Preventive intervention and the quality of mother-infant interaction and infant exploration in irritable infants. In W. Koops H. J. G. Soppe, J. L. van der Linden, C. M. Molenaar, & J. J. F. Schroots(Eds.), Developmental psychology behind the dikes(pp. 249-270). Uitgeverji Eburon.
[48]	Verhees M. W. F. T., Ceulemans E., van IJzendoorn M. H., Bakermans‐Kranenburg M. J., & Bosmans G. (2019). State attachment variability across distressing situations in middle childhood. Social Development, 29(1), 196-216. doi: 10.1111/sode.12394 URL
[49]	Wang Z., Liu Y., & Yang Y. (2005). Review on the researches of attachment working models, Advances in Psychological Science, 13(5), 629-639.
	[ 王争艳, 刘迎泽, 杨叶. (2005). 依恋内部工作模式的研究概述及探讨. 心理科学进展, 13(5), 629-639.]
[50]	Waters H. S., & Waters E. (2006). The attachment working models concept: Among other things, we build script-like representations of secure base experiences. Attachment & Human Development, 8(3), 185-197.
[51]	Wellman H. M. (1990). The children’s theory of mind. MIT Press.
[52]	Winnicott D. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34, 89-97.
[53]	Working Committee for Revision of National Occupational Classification Code. (2015). The occupational classification code of the People’s Republic of China. China Labor and Social Security Publishing House.
	[ 国家职业分类大典修订工作委员会. (2015). 中华人民共和国职业分类大典. 中国劳动社会保障出版社.]