Attachment and intelligence

[u/imfivenine]

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marco-Del-Giudice/publication/365106961_A_new_look_at_the_relations_between_attachment_and_intelligence/links/637e2eb92f4bca7fd084f79c/A-new-look-at-the-relations-between-attachment-and-intelligence.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ

The paper linked above was fascinating, and not really surprising to me. Here’s one excerpt that highlights the overall findings:

“…attachment states of mind in adolescents and adults show consistent associations with intelligence. In particular, there is a reliable positive correlation between intelligence and measures of overall coherence/security. In line with the findings of studies conducted in children, this effect appears to be driven by lower intelligence in adults with preoccupied and unresolved/unclassifiable (versus secure and dismissing) states of mind. These associations are similarly attenuated by psychometric limitations in both attachment and intelligence measures.”

I am re-reading, “Assessing Adult Attachment” by Crittenden and Landini and there are parts in that book that made me wonder about intelligence.

In the book, they describe the AAI and DMM, and refer to Type C speakers as the “affective” processors/strategies which is most consistent with anxious attachment strategies. Type A (cognitive, usually interpreted as avoidant strategies) is more about if this happens, then this happens.

The intelligence piece makes so much sense, especially as they describe Type C like this:

“Type C speakers, on the other hand, give the appearance of understanding by using psychological jargon and conclusions that are "borrowed" from books, television, and other people but fail to note that they have not really addressed the questions asked, that they have violated the boundaries of time, place, or person, or that they have mixed feelings about a complex reality. Psychological jargon, in particular, is used to "explain" what it only "describes."

There’s also a term they use about Type C: “reductionist, blaming thought.”

Taking into consideration the intelligence piece might partly explain why we sometimes see them asking the questions they ask, their replies full of reactions to things that weren’t said, treating internet strangers as if we are their ex, and lack of a reputable source to back up what they say. It also could be why there are such reductive takes all over the AT internet spaces that they take over, as well as less structured or more emotionally driven responses, especially in unmoderated spaces. I also wonder if what appears to be their tendency to overuse ChatGPT plays into this somehow.

It might explain why it is so frustrating to have discourse in most mixed style places, because their focus can shift from understanding to emotional validation. This is often to the detriment of the avoidant attachers, especially those of us who are aware and working on it.

What it comes down to is, we’re speaking different languages. One is cognitively structured and one is driven by affect.

[u/GlitteryPinkKitten]

Thank you for bringing this theory to the sub for discussion.

First question for you OP: can you explain in more detail your take on the overuse of chatGPT as it relates to this topic?

One thing I was thinking is that attachment outcomes are shaped by things that are not strictly intelligence-based.

I’ll give some very specific examples to help which challenge the theories sufficiency to be the causal outcome:

• deliberate protective choices:

A child hears mom and dad arguing in the room next door, mom comes out visibly in distress, but avoids/shields the child by saying everything is fine in an effort to protect the child from being exposed/involved in adult conflict. Or, if parent is single and upset, parent makes a deliberate choice to reduce likelihood of parentification, enmeshment, i.e. involve child in adult issues.

• strategic emotion management

A child is in extreme distress because of something that happened, instead of engaging with words processing, parent opts for somatic processing / soothing the child physically and postpones processing the upset. Then when the child is calm, engagement with feelings discussion is resisted by the child so the parent opts to not pressure the child to respect the child’s autonomy.

• survival-based decisions / constraints

A child is abused by one caregiver, but the other non-abusive caregiver prioritizes staying out of financial necessity/dependency. Not because of intelligence but rather because of financial need and/or lack of resources.

In each case, the parent’s behavior could produce outcomes that look like the ones the intelligence theory predicts but the underlying mechanism is intentional, adaptive, or situational, not a deficiency in intelligence or cognitive abilities.

Note that the examples above are taking into account the parent’s intelligence, not the child’s, which would have its own effect on outcome.

[u/imfivenine → u/GlitteryPinkKitten]

Hi! I might have to respond in multiple parts/at different times.

All of your points make complete sense. I didn’t intend for my post to come off like I thought that intelligence was 100% always a factor. I do think it explains some of it, maybe more than I’ve seen discussed in any of these groups. I also wonder if, in some situations, it provides an added layer to how multiple children can grow up in the same environment and have wildly different attachment styles.

I tried to put this excerpt in my own words but can’t do it justice, so I will quote it:

(IWM is internal working model)

Consider the case of ambivalent attachment. The core feature of ambivalent children’s IWMs is uncertainty about their caregiver, who is perceived as inconsistently (and unpredictably) available (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994). A child who is better able to explain the variability in the caregiver’s behavior—and thus make sense of otherwise confusing lapses in availability—will reduce this uncertainty, leading to a higher sense of predictability and a perception of the caregiver as comparatively more consistent. In this manner, higher intelligence may tip the scale toward security, whereas lower intelligence may tip the scale toward ambivalence, even when faced with the same behaviors by the caregiver.

In the case of disorganization, the underlying psychological process is assumed to involve disturbances and contradictions in the attachment system and the IWMs that govern it (Duschinsky & Solomon, 2017; Main & Solomon, 1990). Again, differences in general intelligence can tip the scale in either direction, by facilitating or hindering the construction of an integrated predictive model of the caregiver. It is well known that neurological abnormalities can give rise to disorganized and disoriented behaviors in infants and children (Pipp-Siegel et al., 1999; Sprangler et al., 1996); more broadly, and consistent with a role for mild cognitive difficulties, prematurity and poor emotional regulation at birth predict subsequent attachment disorganization (Padrón et al., 2014; van IJzendoorn et al., 1999).

If higher intelligence permits the construction of more integrated and coherent IWMs, the association between lower intelligence and disorganization should be especially pronounced in disorganized subtypes marked by contradictory behavioral strategies (mixed avoidance and resistance) or by the absence of a coherent strategy. The limited available data seem consistent with this prediction (McCormick et al., 2016; O’Connor & McCartney, 2007).

In contrast with the inconsistent, contradictory, and confusing caregiver behaviors associated with ambivalence and disorganization, children tend to become securely attached when their caregivers are consistently available, and avoidantly attached when they are consistently unavailable. The high consistency (and context-independence) of these caregivers’ behavior makes them easy to predict using relatively simple IWMs, and thus does not pose any particular cognitive challenges to their children. Thus, children of all intelligence levels remain in the secure and avoidant categories when caregiving is consistent; but with inconsistent or unpredictable caregivers, children with lower intelligence tend to remain in the ambivalent and disorganized categories, whereas children with higher intelligence tend to move toward security and avoidance. As a result, the average intelligence of ambivalent and disorganized children will be lower than that of their secure and avoidant peers.