Trust development as an expectancy-learning process: Testing contingency effects


Autoři: Guy Bosmans aff001;  Theodore E. A. Waters aff002;  Chloe Finet aff001;  Simon De Winter aff001;  Dirk Hermans aff003
Působiště autorů: Clinical Psychology, KU Leuven, Belgium aff001;  New York University - Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates aff002;  Centre for Psychology of Learning and Experimental Psychopathology, KU Leuven, Belgium aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225934

Souhrn

Trust in parental support and subsequent support seeking behavior, a hallmark of secure attachment, result from experiences with sensitive parents during distress. However, the underlying developmental mechanism remains unclear. We tested the hypothesis that trust is the result of an expectancy-learning process condtional upon contingency (the probability that caregiver support has a positive outcome). We developed a new paradigm in which a novel caregiver provides help to solve a problem. Contingency of the caregiver’s support was manipulated and participants’ trust in the caregiver and their help seeking behavior was measured in three independent samples. The hypothesis was supported suggesting that trust and support seeking result from an expectancy-learning process. These findings’ potential contribution to attachment theory is discussed.

Klíčová slova:

Asses – Behavior – Behavioral conditioning – Cognition – Conditioned response – Children – Learning – Operant conditioning


Zdroje

1. Benson MJ, McWey LM, Ross JJ. Parental attachment and peer relations in adolescence: A meta-analysis. Res Hum Dev. 2006;3:33–43.

2. Bosmans G, De Smedt B. Insecure attachment is associated with math anxiety in middle childhood. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1596. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01596 26528233

3. Madigan S, Brumariu LE, Villani V, Atkinson L, Lyons-Ruth K. Representational and questionnaire measures of attachment: A meta-analysis of relations to child internalizing and externalizing problems. Psychol Bull. 2016;142(4):367–99. doi: 10.1037/bul0000029 26619212

4. Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2016.

5. Van IJzendoorn MH. Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychol Bull. 1995;117:387–403. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.387 7777645

6. Verhage ML, Schuengel C, Madigan S, Fearon RMP, Oosterman M, Cassibba R, et al. Narrowing the transmission gap: A synthesis of three decades of research on intergenerational transmission of attachment. Psychol Bull. 2015;142(4):377–366.

7. Rutter M. Commentary: Attachment is a biological concept—A reflection on Fearon et al. (2014). J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip. 2014;55(9):1042–3.

8. Thompson RA. Early Attachment and Later Development: Reframing the Questions. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Implications. 3rd ed. New York & London: The Guilford Press; 2016. p. 330–48.

9. Waters HS, Waters E. The attachment working models concept: Among other things, we build script-like representations of secure base experiences. Attach Hum Dev. 2006;8(3):185–97. doi: 10.1080/14616730600856016 16938702

10. Pavlov IP. Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex. London: Oxford University Press; 1927.

11. Hermans D, Vansteenwegenin D, Crombez G, Baeyens F, Eelen P. Expectancy-learning and evaluative learning in human classical conditioning: Affective priming as an indirect and unobtrusive measure of conditioned stimulus valence. Behav Res Ther. 2002;40:217–34. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(01)00006-7 11863234

12. Kamin LJ. Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In: Campbell BA, Church RM, editors. Punishment and Aversive Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1969. p. 279–96.

13. Rescorla LA. Predictability and the number of pairings in Pavlovian fear conditioning. Psychon Sci. 1966;4:383–4.

14. Skinner BF. Two types of conditioned reflex and a pseudo type. J Gen Psychol. 1935;12:66–77.

15. Ainsworth MDS. Object relations, dependency and attachment: A theoretical review of the infant-mother relationship. Child Dev. 1969;40:969–1025. 5360395

16. Bowlby J. Letter to Scott Henderson, 30th July 1973, Bowlby Archive Welcome Collections, PP/Bow/J.9/98)

17. Bowlby J. Comment on paper by Dr Gewirtz. In B.M. Foss (ed) Determinants of Infant Behaviour (pp.301-304), 1961;London: Methuen.

18. Rajecki DW, Lamb ME, Obmascher P. Toward a general theory of infantile attachment: A comparative review of aspects of the social bond. Behav Brain Sci. 1978;1(3):417–64.

19. Bosmans G, Vervliet B, Verhees MWFT, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Van IJzendoorn MH. The development of attachment (in)security: Can learning theory help unravel the black box? Manuscript in Preparation. 2019.

20. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, editors. Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press. 2007.

21. Beckes L, Coan JA. The distress-relief dynamic in attachment bonds. In: Hazan C, Zayas V, editors. Bases of Adult Attachment: Linking Brain, Mind, and Behavior. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media; 2015. p. 11–33.

22. Beckes L, Coan JA, Morris JP. Implicit conditioning of faces via the social regulation of emotion: ERP evidence of early attentional biases for security conditioned faces. Psychophysiology. 2013;50:734–42. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12056 23713682

23. Beckes L, Simpson JA, Erickson AB. Of snakes and succor: Learning secure attachment associations with novel faces via negative stimulus pairings. Psychol Sci. 2010;21:721–8. doi: 10.1177/0956797610368061 20483852

24. Bosmans G. Cognitive behaviour therapy for children and adolescents: Can attachment theory contribute to its efficacy? Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2016;19(4):310–28. doi: 10.1007/s10567-016-0212-3 27576548

25. De Houwer J, Beckers T. A review of recent developments in research and theories on human contingency learning. Q J Exp Psychol. 2002;55(B):289–310.

26. Ainsworth MDS, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall S. Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1978.

27. Posada G, Jacobs A, Carbonell OA, Alzate G, Bustamante MR, Arenas A. Maternal care and attachment security in ordinary and emergency contexts. Dev Psychol. 1999;35:1379–88. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.35.6.1379 10563728

28. Winnicott D. Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. Int J Psychoanal. 1953;34:89–97. 13061115

29. Bechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, Anderson SW. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortext. Cognition. 1994;50:7–15. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3 8039375

30. Crone EA, van der Molen MW. Development of decision making in school-aged children and adolescents: Evidence from heart rate and skin conductance analysis. Child Dev. 2007;78(4):1288–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01066.x 17650139

31. Baeyens F, Eelen P, Crombez G, Van Den Bergh O. Human evaluative conditioning: Acquisition trials, presentation schedule, evaluative style, and contingency awareness. Behav Res Ther. 1992;30:133–42. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(92)90136-5 1567342

32. Bosmans G, Kerns KA. Attachment in middle childhood: Progress and prospects. In: Bosmans G, Kerns KA, editors. Attachment in middle childhood: Theoretical advances and new directions in an emerging field New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 2015. p. 1–14.

33. Del Giudice M. Attachment in middle childhood: An evolutionary–developmental perspective. In: Bosmans G, Kerns KA, editors. Attachment in middle childhood: Theoretical advances and new directions in an emerging field New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 2015. p. 15–30.

34. Verschueren K. Middle childhood teacher–child relationships: Insights from an attachment perspective and remaining challenges. In: Bosmans G, Kerns KA, editors. Attachment in middle childhood: Theoretical advances and new directions in an emerging field New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 2015. p. 77–91.

35. Ridenour TA, Greenberg MT, Cook ET. Structure and validity of people in my life: A self-report measure of attachment in late childhood. J Youth Adolesc. 2006;35(6):1037–53. doi: 10.1007/s10964-006-9070-5 17476310

36. Bosmans G, Braet C, Heylen J, De Raedt R. Children’s attentional processing of mother and proximity seeking. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0124038. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124038 25927921

37. Beckes L, Simons K, Lewis D, Le A, Edwards W. Desperately seeking support: Negative reinforcement schedules in the formation of adult attachment associations. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2017;8(2):229–38.

38. Bosmans G, Bowles DP, Dewitte M, De Winter S, Braet C. An experimental evaluation of the State Adult Attachment Measure: The influence of attachment primes on the content of state attachment representations. J Exp Psychopathol. 2014;5(2):134–50.

39. Vandevivere E, Bosmans G, Roels S, Dujardin A, Braet C. State trust in middle childhood: An experimental manipulation of maternal support. J Child Fam Stud. 2018;27:1252–63.

40. Van IJzendoorn MH, Juffer F. The Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 2006: Adoption as intervention. Meta-analytic evidence for massive catch-up and plasticity in physical, socio-emotional, and cognitive development. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2006;47(12):1228–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01675.x 17176378

41. Finet C, Vermeer HJ, Juffer F, Bosmans G. Behavioral adjustment of Chinese adoptees: The role of pre-adoption experiences. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2018;86:226–35.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 12