Attachment and children's biased attentional processing: evidence for the exclusion of attachment-related information

PLoS One. 2014 Jul 25;9(7):e103476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103476. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

Research in both infants and adults demonstrated that attachment expectations are associated with the attentional processing of attachment-related information. However, this research suffered from methodological issues and has not been validated across ages. Employing a more ecologically valid paradigm to measure attentional processes by virtue of eye tracking, the current study tested the defensive exclusion hypothesis in late childhood. According to this hypothesis, insecurely attached children are assumed to defensively exclude attachment-related information. We hypothesized that securely attached children process attachment- related neutral and emotional information in a more open manner compared to insecurely attached children. Sixty-two children (59.7% girls, 8-12 years) completed two different tasks, while eye movements were recorded: task one presented an array of neutral faces including mother and unfamiliar women and task two presented the same with happy and angry faces. Results indicated that more securely attached children looked longer at mother's face regardless of the emotional expression. Also, they tend to have more maintained attention to mother's neutral face. Furthermore, more attachment avoidance was related to a reduced total viewing time of mother's neutral, happy, and angry face. Attachment anxiety was not consistently related to the processing of mother's face. Findings support the theoretical assumption that securely attached children have an open manner of processing all attachment-related information.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Attention*
  • Child
  • Emotions
  • Eye Movements
  • Facial Expression
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Object Attachment*
  • Pattern Recognition, Visual

Grants and funding

Preparation of this paper was supported by Grant BOF10/GOA/014 for a Concerted Research Action of Ghent University (awarded to Prof. Dr. R. De Raedt), and by ‘the Multidisciplinary Research Partnership’ and ‘The integrative neuroscience of behavioural control’ (Prof. Dr. Sven C. Mueller). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.