Aspelmeier, Jeffery E. (1998, March). Working models and the - - PDF document

Aspelmeier, Jeffery E. (1998, March). Working models and the relational schema; Social information processing as a link between parent-child and peer relationships. Talk presented at the 1998 Kent Psychology Forum, April 26-29, 1998. In this presentation I will present a theoretical discussion of the concept of attachment schema based expectancies and the potential application of social cognitive principals to the investigation of the link between Parent child relationships and peer relationships. Attachment theory both in its normative conception (Bowlby, 1979, 1980, 1989) and from an individual differences perspective (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall, 1978) is one theory of socio-emotional development that suggest functioning in parent-child relationships and functioning in peer relationships should be associated with one-another. Such a hypothesis is based on the idea that the parent-child attachment relationship is our first source of information about relationships (close or otherwise) and that this information may be generalized to other relationships through the life span. For the most part empirical investigations of parent child attachment and peer relations have supported the proposed link between the parent-child relationship and peer relationships. In the context of both peer groups and friendships, significant associations have been found between attachment to mother and father and functioning with peers. For example, secure attachment to either parent has been linked to greater peer competence in young children. Also, in general, securely attached children have not only more friendships but better quality

• friendships. Thus it seems that there is some kind of relationship between attachment and peer

functioning.

Though attachment theory proposes such a relationship, it is not clear what mechanism would account for it. Bowlby (1979, 1980, 1989) has proposed the notion that within the parent- child attachment relationship infants and children develop a mental representation of the attachment relationship from which develops "working models" of the self, others, and the relationship between self and other. The working model is described as a set of conscious and/or unconscious schemas, scripts or rules that summarize and individual's experiences in and expectations about relationships and, once formed, are resistant to dramatic change. (overhead 1) As Bretherton (1985, p.11) puts it: "Through continual transaction with the world of persons and objects, the child constructs increasingly complex internal working models of that world and of the significant persons in it, including the self...useful in appraising and guiding behavior in new situations." Thus individual differences in attachment related models or schema's result in differences in expectations about the self, others, and the interaction between self and others that direct not

• nly actions and affect but also attention, memory and cognition (Mian, Kaplan, & Cassidy,

1985). Such considerations make it possible to assess attachment and its correlates using methods others than behavioral observations. Investigations of working models have predominantly used open ended projective measures including drawing of the family (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), puppet interview and story completion tasks (Bretherton, Ridgeway, & Cassidy, 1990: Cassidy, 1988), analysis of discourse during parent-child reunions (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), and analysis of coherence of transcripts from the Adult Attachment Interview (Koback & Sceery, 1988). These

types of investigations have revealed some individual differences with respect to attachment in the coherence and emotional openness of responses to these projective measures which have been interpreted as suggesting that secure individuals have representations of attachment relationships that are well integrated and balanced (or emotionally open) These projective methods have been applied to investigating the link between attachment and peer relations in two samples (Suess, Grossmann, & Sroufe, 1992; Cassidy, Kirsh, Scolton, & Parke, 1996). Responses to open ended stories tapping children's representations of peer intentions and interactions were coded for valence (that is positivity vs. negativity) rather than coherence and emotional openness. Result from these studies indicated that secure attachment was related to having more positive representations of peer intentions and interactions than either insecure attachment style. These studies, identifying differences in the coherence, balance and valence of working models, are important in understanding representations of attachment information, But it is also important to identify what way these differences exert their influence on the processing of social

• information. For the most part, very little detail has been provided about how differences in

attachment working models would effect cognitive processes and how such effects could account for a link between attachment relationships and other types of relationships. However, the social-cognitive literature is replete with studies showing that mental representations can and do influence the processing of a variety of social information including: person perception, social judgments, and information seeking. Use of mental representations may also have behavioral consequences like inducing behaviors consistent with expectancies or self-efficacy beliefs, biasing attempts at hypothesis testing, and inducing others to behave in ways consistent with

• ne's own expectancies as in the self-fulfilling prophesy (e.g. Snyder 1992).

More recently investigators have begun to make attempts to clarify the nature of mental representations of relationships and to detail the cognitive mechanisms by which they influence relationship functioning. Baldwin (1992) has observed that in the areas of relationships, object relations, and interpersonal expectations many authors are beginning to take a social-cognitive view of the issue of interpersonal relationships and propose specific cognitive structures or sets

• f structures that give rise to expectancies within relationships. Many similar conceptualizations

have been proposed including relational models (Mitchell, 1988), interpersonal schemas (Safran, 1990), relationship schemas (Baldwin, Carrell, & Lopez, 1990; Horowitz, 1989), and relational schemas (Planalp, 1987; Baldwin 1992) which are all essentially consistent with the Bowlby's notion of working models. One feature of these conceptualizations, that has generally not been included in previous discussion of working models, is the specific information processing outcomes associated with the use of a cognitive structure. Baldwin (1992) has proposed a model of attachment as a relational schema which provides a corollary of information processing outcomes. His model suggests that based on repeated experience with interpersonal interactions individuals develop relational schemas consisting of an interpersonal script, an associated self schema, and an associated other schema. The interpersonal script is a cognitive generalization about interactions between self and other. Associated with episodic memory (both declarative and procedural) for actual encounters, it includes a specification of roles for particular members in the encounter. The declarative nature

• f the interpersonal script provides a summary statement about what behaviors tend to be

followed by what responses. While the Procedural nature to the script provides an if-then contingency that can be use to generate interpersonal expectancies and plan behavior.

Associated with the interpersonal script are the self-schema (representing the self in a specific type of interaction) and an other schema (representing others in a specific type of interaction). With the concept of conjoint schematicity Baldwin (1992) suggests that the self and other schemas are themselves associated Thus, if a person is schematic on one component

• f the relational schema, then that person should also be schematic on other components as well.

With respect to the priming or activation of a relational schema structure, conjoint schematicity suggests that priming of one structure (either self, other, or interpersonal script) should result in priming of the relevant associated structures. More simply, we should see conjoint priming effects for associated structures. In the context of the parent-child relationship, it is thought that the child develops an interpersonal script representing the various interaction patters experienced and schemas of self and other that correspond to their respective roles within the script. To the extent that interaction patters are repeated, the script and schemas becomes richer and more strongly associated. Thus a relational schema for an attachment relationship may become chronically accessible and may be active in interactions outside of the attachment relationship. Since it is overlearned a chronically accessible schema should function in an automatic manner. That is, the processing of schema-relevant information should occur in a rapid, effortless, parallel fashion. This includes the notion that attachment schemas may be functioning even when not appropriate to the context, for example in peer interactions. Information processing outcomes Borrowing heavily from social-cognitive literature, especially the area of self schemas (Markus & Zajonc, 1985), Baldwin (1992) has outlined several information processing outcomes associated with use of the relational schema. (1) Sensitivity to and efficiency in processing of

schema-relevant information. The processing of Schema-relevant information seems to have an advantage over aschematic information. For example, people are more sensitive to variations in schema-relevant information and give more extreme evaluations of a target along schematic dimensions (Fong & Markus, 1982). Schema-relevant information may even capture our attention better than irrelevant information. For example, insecure/avoidant and insecure/ambivalent children, age 31/2, are less likely to look at a picture of a mother-child dyad engaged in a positive interaction (Kirsh & Cassidy, 1997). Schema-relevant information is processed and responded to faster than irrelevant information. Individuals who are schematic on a dimension are able to make quicker judgments (compared to aschematics) of whether schema relevant words are applicable to them (Markus, 1977). Schema-relevant information can be "chunked" in to larger sequences than non-relevant information (Markus, Smith, & Moreland, 1985) indicating that schema relevant information is assimilated into functional units. Again, Baldwin (1992) suggests that all of these effects should be seen under conditions of automatic and conscious processing, that is in the presence or absence of competing task demands, respectively. (2) Improved memory for schema-relevant information. Schematic individuals have better recall for schema relevant information than did aschematic individuals (Carpenter, 1988). For example Participants find it easier to generate instances of significant relationships congruent with their primary attachment pattern than incongruent relationships (Koh- Rangarajoo, Cited in Baldwin 1992). Also, Participants generate more instances of significant relationships congruent with a primed (temporarily accessible) attachment style (Baldwin, Fehr, Keedian, Seidel, Thomson, 1996). Secure children recall mother-child interaction stories where the mother was responsive better than insecure/avoidant children and secure children recall

stories where the mother was rejecting better than insecure/ambivalent children (Kirsh and Cassidy, 1997). The use of the schema concept also predicts that an individual may recall schema relevant information that was never actually presented (i.e. schema-consistent intrusions). Rogers, Rogers, & Kuiper (cited in Baldwin, 1992) found that subjects rating adjectives for self-descriptiveness reported seeing adjectives that were never presented but were related to their self-schema. (3) Ambiguous information tends to be interpreted in ways congruent with one's schema. The real advantage of schema usage is that it helps perceivers make sense of ambiguous social information by placing interactions in a clarifying context, but a chronically accessible schema may frame perception of social information even when it is not appropriate to the context. A study by Baldwin, Carrell, and Lopez (1990) demonstrated that priming different relational schema, by subliminally presenting a picture of either the Pope with disapproving face or the psychology department head with a disapproving face, influenced how subjects interpreted subsequently presented stimulus materials (e.g. feeling toward premarital sex or academic dishonesty). That is, their responses tended to be in line with the primed schema. Together this list of outcomes would provide social-developmental researchers interested in issues of representational structures of relationship information. In my own work I have begun a series of pilot studies, with a college sample, aimed at tapping the relational schema associated with attachment relationships. Our effort to this point have mainly focussed on individual differences in recall memory for schema-relevant and schema-irrelevant adjectives. The preliminary results, though not entirely as predicted, show that participants self-report attachment style are associated with schema relevant intrusions in recall memory. For example,

secure participants had fewer avoidant intrusions in recall than did ambivalent participants (though the difference was not significant for avoidant participants). Conclusions By considering many of the information processing outcomes associated with schema usage that have been identified in by cognitive and social-cognitive researchers and by adopting some of the methods used to tap schematic processing, research on attachment and its correlates would greatly benefit. Adoption of this framework should aid in generating more precise predictions based on attachment theory. Also, considering these outcomes should help frame questions about the nature of working models of attachment in a more testable manner than they have previously been asked. For example, including such variables as response times, memory and intrusions in memory, and chunking effects for relationship information in research on working models, it may be possible to identify individual differences in what types of information are contained within the attachment representations and to identify the what stages in the information processing chain certain types of relationship information have their influence

• upon. That is, we may be able to determine what types of relationship information can

differentially effect encoding, elaboration, and retrieval processes. In another example, with respect to priming effects, it may be possible to identify what types and parts of attachment schemas are activated by entrance into non-attachment relationship, or even if they are activated at all. In a more general sense, a clear delineation of the structure and functioning of attachment schemas and the inclusion of these social-cognitive methods in investigations of attachment and its correlates make it possible to determine whether the inclusion of concepts of cognitive structures actually adds to the explanatory power of Attachment Theory or whether we should consider more parsimonious concepts like Expectancy Theory (e.g. Olson, Roese, & Zanna,

1995) or Symbolic Interactionist theories (e.g. Stryker & Statham, 1985), that do not assume the notion of a cognitive structure but make similar predictions. In conclusion, it should be noted that including cognitive and social-cognitive concepts and methods to the study of social development will probably introduce new ambiguities as old ones are clarified, but none-the-less the potential benefits in the form of refined prediction, greater explanatory power, and a merging

• f the social-development and social-cognitive literature do seem promising

References Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., and Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange stituation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin. 112(3), 461-484. Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., and Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: availability and accessability

• effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(1), 94-109

Baldwin, M. W., Carrell, S. E., and Lopez, D. F. (1990). Priming Relationship Schemas: My advisor and the pope are watching me from the back of my mind. Journal fo Experimental Social Psychology 26, 435-454. Bowlby, J. (1979). Effects on behavior of disruption of an affectional bond. The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds, (pp. 67-80). London: Tavistock Publications. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Volume III. New York, NY: Basic Books INC.. Bowlby, J. (1989). The role of attachment in personality development and

• psychopathology. In S. I. Greenspan & G. H. Pollock (Eds.) The Course of Life Vol. 1, (pp. 229-

270). International Universities Press.

Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points in attachment theory and research, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1-2, Serial No. 109), 3-35. Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., and Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal working models

• f the attachmetn relationship: An attachment story completion task for 3-year-olds. In M. T.

Greenburg, D. Cichetti, and E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the Preschool Years. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Carpenter, S. L. (1988). Self-relevance and goal-directed processing in the recall and wieghting of information about others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 24, 310-332. Cassidy, J. (1988). The self as related to child-mother attachment at six. Child Development 59, 121-134. Cassidy, J., Kirsh, S. J., Scolton, K. L., and Parke, R. D. (1996). Attachment and representations of peer relationships. Developmental Psychology, vol. 32 (5), 892-904. Fong, G. T., & Markus, H. (1982). Self-schemas and judgments about others. Social Cognition.1, 191-205. Horowitz, M. J. (1989). Relationship shcema formulation: Role-relationship models and intrapsychic conflict. Psychiatry, 52.260-274. Kirsh, S. J. and Cassidy, J. (1997). Preschoolers' attention to and memory for attachment- relevant information. Child Development, 68(6), 1143-1153. Kobak, R. R. and Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146. Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing

points of attachment theory and research, Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1-2, Serial No. 209), 66-106. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63-78. Markus, H., Smith, J., & Moreland, R. L. (1985) Role of the self-concept in the perception of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1494-1512. Markus, H., and Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In

• G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 137-

230). New York: Random House. Mitchell, S. A. (1988). Relational concepts in in psychoanalysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., and Zanna, M. P., (1995). Expectancies, In E. T. Higgins and

• A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles.

Planalp, S., (1985). Relational schemata: A test of alternative forms of relational knowledge as guides to communication. Human Communication Research. vol. 12(1), 3-29. Safran, J. D. (1990). Towards a refinement of coginitve therapy in light of interpersonal theory: I. Theory. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 87-105. Snyder M., (1992). Motivational foundations of behavioral confirmation, In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 25. Academic Press, INC., San Diego.

Stryker, S., and Statham, A. (1985). Symbolic interaciton and role theory. In G. Lindzey, and E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (3rd ed., vol. 1, pp. 311-378). New York: Random House. Suess, J. G., Grossmann, K. E., and Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Effects of infant attachment to mother and father on quality of adaptation in preschool: From dyadic to individual organization fo self. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 15, 43-65.

Working Models and the Relational Schema: Social Information Processing as a Link Between Parent-Child and Peer Relationships Jeffery E. Aspelmeier Kent State University

Bowlby (1979, 1980, 1989) 1 "working models" : a set of conscious and/or unconscious schemas, scripts or rules that summarize and individual's experiences in and expectations about relationships. Once formed, They are resistant to dramatic change.

As Bretherton (1985, p.11):

"Through continual transaction with the world of persons and objects, the child constructs increasingly complex internal working models of that world and

• f the significant persons in it, including the

self...useful in appraising and guiding behavior in new situations."

2 Projective Assessments of Working Models

C Children's Drawings of Their Family

(Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985)

C Puppet Interviews and Story Completions

(Cassidy, 1988) (Bretherton, Ridgeway, & Cassidy, 1990) (Cassidy, Kirsh, Scolton, & Parke, 1996)

C Analysis of Discourse During Parent-Child Reunions

(Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985)

C Analysis of Coherence of Transcripts from the Adult

Attachment Interview (Koback & Sceery, 1988)

2 Recent Conceptualizations of Representations of Relationship Information

C Relational Models

(Mitchell, 1988)

C Interpersonal Schemas

(Safran, 1990)

C Relationship Schemas

(Baldwin, Carrell, & Lopez, 1990) (Horowitz, 1989)

C Relational Schemas

(Planalp, 1987; Baldwin 1992)

3 Baldwin (1992) relational schema: Self Schema Other Schema Interpersonal Script

C

• Memory for Encounters
• Roles
• Summary of Behaviors and

Responses

• If - Then Contingency = Plans and

Expectancies Conjoint Schematicity Conjoint Priming Effects for Associated Structures

Information processing outcomes 4 (1) Sensitivity to and efficiency in processing of schema- relevant information.

• People make more extreme evaluations of other along self-

schematic dimensions (Fong and Markus, 1982).

• Schema-relevant info captures our attention (Kirsh &

Cassidy, 1997)

• Schematic information is processed and responded to
• faster. (Markus, 1977)
• Schematic information can be chunked into larger

sequences than schema-irrelevant information. (Markus, Smith, & Moreland, 1985)

• Should function under conditions of automatic and

controlled processing.

5 (2) Improved memory for schema-relevant information.

• Improved Recall for Schematic information.

(Carpenter, 1988)

• Improved memory for information relevant to a

primed schema (Baldwin, 1996).

• May make schema-relevant intrusions in memory.

(Rogers, Rogers, & Kuiper; cited in Baldwin 1992) (3) Ambiguous information tends to be interpreted in ways congruent with one's schema.

• Primed relational schema can influence the

interpretation of information in schema consistent ways.