Running Head: COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY AND ATTACHMENT Cognitive Vulnerability and Attachment Nathan L. Williams University of Arkansas & John H. Riskind George Mason University Williams, N. L. & Riskind, J. H. (2004). Cognitive vulnerability and attachment. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 18, 3 6. Corresponding Author: Nathan L. Williams 216 Memorial Hall University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-5802 Email: nlwilli@uark.edu
Cognitive Vulnerability and Attachment 2 Abstract The articles in this special issue address empirically the application of attachment theory to cognitive vulnerability models of anxiety and depression. The findings from these studies converge on the theme that attachment theory has considerable utility in potentially extending and refining current cognitive vulnerability models through a consideration of interpersonal context and the cognitive mechanisms by which negative interpersonal experiences may confer increased risk to later anxious and depressive symptoms. KEY WORDS: cognitive vulnerability, anxiety, depression
Cognitive Vulnerability and Attachment 3 Cognitive Vulnerability and Attachment Over the past decade empirical research and theory examining both cognitive vulnerability models of psychopathology and models of attachment have become increasingly prominent. Common to both general models is an emphasis on providing a differentiated understanding of the cognitive structures and processes that characterize adaptive versus maladaptive functioning. Cognitive vulnerability models of psychopathology emphasize the role of maladaptive beliefs, cognitive styles or schemas, and/or information processing biases as vulnerability factors for psychopathology that confer increased risk for the onset of symptoms and disorders when individuals experience stressful life events (e.g., Abramson, Metalsky, Alloy, 1989; Beck, 1967, 1987; Ingram, Miranda, & Segal, 1998; Riskind, 1997; Williams & Riskind, 2003). Similarly, models of attachment emphasize the roles of secure or insecure internal working models of self and other, and their subsequent effects on information processing, as increasing risk for psychopathology, difficulties with emotional- and selfregulation, interpersonal problems, and decreased relationship satisfaction, when such working models are activated by attachment-relevant threats or stressors (e.g., Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Baldwin, 1992; Bartholomew, 1990; Bowlby, 1969, 1973; Collins & Read, 1994; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer, 1998; Simpson & Rholes, 1998). Thus, both models contain an explicit cognitive-diathesis-stress hypothesis whereby maladaptive cognitive structures and processes are activated by appropriate environmental contingencies to increase risk for maladaptive functioning. Cognitive Vulnerability Models Cognitive models suggest that individuals characteristic ways of interpreting or explaining events in their lives, or forecasting potential future events and outcomes, have important implications for their vulnerability to depression or anxiety (e.g., Abramson et al., 1989; Beck, 1967, 1987; Riskind, 1997). While few studies have examined the maladaptive, global cognitive styles that are related to the development of anxiety, ample research has examined the global cognitive styles
Cognitive Vulnerability and Attachment 4 that are related to the development of depression (e.g., Abramson et al., 1989; Beck, 1967, 1987). These depressive styles involve a pattern of cognitive organization related to the individual s explanations of past loss, defeat, and failure. In contrast, anxiety-related cognitive styles are concerned with the way individuals process, elaborate and mentally simulate anticipated future threat (Riskind, 1997; Riskind, Williams, Gessner, Chrosniak & Cortina, 2000). A growing body of research suggests that both depressive styles and anxiety-related styles, and their resultant information processing biases, do increase risk for depression and anxiety when activated by the occurrence of negative or stressful life events (e.g., Alloy, Abramson, Hogan et al., 2000; Ingram et al., 1998; Williams & Riskind, 2003). As evidence for the utility of cognitive styles in predicting later psychopathology has accumulated, researchers have begun to examine the potential developmental antecedents and origins of these cognitive risk factors, including the application of attachment theory to cognitive vulnerability models. Attachment Bowlby s (1969, 1973) initial model of attachment hypothesized that all children internalize working models of self and other based on repeated interactions with caregivers that serve as templates for navigating relationships throughout the lifespan. These working models are thought to provide the foundation for self-efficacy beliefs, affect regulation strategies, the self concept, and behavioral strategies for distress management (e.g., Bowlby, 1988; Mikulincer, 1998). Moreover, the continuity of attachment working models across the lifespan suggests negative attachment orientations may represent a developmental antecedent of maladaptive cognitive styles. Several developments in attachment theory and research seem particularly relevant for this special issue and readers of the journal. First, several social cognitive researchers have reconceptualized working models of self and others in terms of relationship schemas that are used to predict the behavior of others and guide one s own behavior in interpersonal situations (e.g.,
Cognitive Vulnerability and Attachment 5 Baldwin, 1992; Collins & Read, 1994). This reconceptualization of attachment in social cognitive terms aids in bridging the gap between Bowlby s initial object-relations formulation and contemporary cognitive theories of psychopathology. Second, considerable research has documented the utility of employing attachment theory to study adult romantic relationships, which has effectively broadened the scope of attachment research (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson & Rholes, 1998). Third, a growing body of research indicates an important link between both infant and adult-romantic attachment insecurity and psychopathology (e.g., Simpson & Rholes, 1998). Finally, several theorists have argued that attachment models have utility in explaining the cognitive mechanisms by which negative interpersonal events and experience may result in later increased risk for anxiety and depression (e.g., Ingram, Miranda, & Segal, 1998). Outline The six articles presented in this special issue exemplify the position that a consideration of attachment orientation may usefully extend and refine cognitive vulnerability models of anxiety and depression. The first set of studies examines the relationships between adult attachment orientations, cognitive vulnerabilities, and self-reported anxious and depressive symptoms in young adult samples. The article by Williams and Riskind suggests that increased attachment insecurity is associated with increased cognitive risk for anxiety and depression, increased anxious and depressive symptoms, and greater relationship and general life impairments. Further, this study provides evidence that the relationship between attachment orientation and anxious or depressive symptoms is partially mediated by levels of cognitive vulnerability. The article by Safford, Alloy, Crossfield, Morocco, and Wang examines whether negative affectivity accounts for the relationships between attachment insecurity and negative cognitive style and both anxious and depressive symptoms from the perspective of the tripartite model. Their findings provide further support for a relationship between attachment insecurity and anxious and depressive symptoms, and suggest that the relationship
Cognitive Vulnerability and Attachment 6 between attachment insecurity and depression is independent of the effects of negative affectivity. Finally, the article by Riskind, Altman, Williams, Black, Balaban, and Gessner provides evidence that retrospective reports of parental bonding and parents attachment styles are associated with increased cognitive vulnerability to anxiety, independent of current symptom levels. Two studies employ a diathesis-stress framework to examine the associations between attachment orientations and relevant outcomes. The article by Ingram, Bailey, and Siegle examines the information processing characteristics of individuals with disrupted parental bonding on an attentional bias task under conditions of mood priming. Their findings indicate that poorly bonded individuals evidence an attentional bias for both depression- and anxiety-relevant information and may employ cognitive avoidance strategies to regulate distress. The article by Rholes and Simpson presents a diathesis-stress model on how romantic attachment orientations (or styles) are associated with depressive symptomatology and discusses empirical support for this model. These two articles converge on the idea that insecure attachment orientations, when activated by relevant stressors, importantly influence the ways in which individuals process information. Finally, the article by Rogers, Reinecke, and Setzer examines potential confounds of the association between attachment orientation and cognitive vulnerability in a sample of clinically depressed adults. Their findings suggest that neither mood state nor social desirability could account for the relationship between cognitive vulnerability and attachment orientation and provide further evidence for the link between attachment insecurity and cognitive vulnerability in a clinical sample. As research and theory on emotional disorders continues to integrate cognitive and interpersonal components, attachment theory may provide a useful framework for extending current cognitive models of anxiety and depression. It is hoped that this collection of articles will stimulate interest in the application of attachment theory to cognitive models of psychopathology and will serve as points of departure for future theory and research.
Cognitive Vulnerability and Attachment 7 References Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358 372. Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Alloy, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., Hogan, M. E., Whitehouse, W. G., Rose, D. T., Robinson, M. S., Kim, R. S., & Lapkin, J. B. (2000). The Temple-Wisconsin cognitive vulnerability to depression project: Lifetime history of Axis I psychopathology in individuals at high and low cognitive risk for depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 403 418. Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461-484. Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147 178. Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Beck, A. T. (1987). Cognitive models of depression. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 1, 5 37. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation, anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of attachment: The structure and function of working models. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 53 90). London: Jessica Kingsley. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. Ingram, R. E., Miranda, J. & Segal, Z. V. (1998). Cognitive vulnerability to depression. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and affect regulation: Strategic variations in selfappraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 420 435. Riskind, J. H. (1997). Looming vulnerability to threat: A cognitive paradigm for anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 386-404.
Cognitive Vulnerability and Attachment 8 Riskind, J. H., Williams, N.L., Gessner, T., Chrosniak, L.D., & Cortina, J. (2000). The looming maladaptive style: Anxiety, danger, and schematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 837-852. Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (1998). Attachment theory and close relationships. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Williams, N. L., & Riskind, J. H. (2003). A prospective investigation of cognitive vulnerability to anxiety. Submitted for publication.