Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
16 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Introduction
Definition: Mullen et al 2004; Miller 2012; Amar 2007 Difficult to define Typologies |
Prevalent crime, significantly compromises victim's quality of life (Mullen et al., 2004), intentional pattern of repeated intrusive/intimidating behaviours: feel harassed, threatened, and fearful (Miller, 2012); may escelate into physical violence (Amar, 2007) Difficult to define: perfectly normal behaviours Typologies: love, simple, erotomanic |
|
|
Object Relations Theory (Klein, 1998) Importance? 'Object', 'Relations' Satisfying, frustrating experiences |
Emphasises importance of interpersonal relations: family (mother and child) Object refers to person Relation refers to interpersonal relations Satisfying - ideal image of nurturing other Frustrating - negative image of depriving other |
|
|
Object Relations Theory (Klein, 1998) Splitting |
Splitting - leads to internal world characterised by representations of self and other (including good and bad characteristics) allowing flexibility in personality, more adaptable to complexities of complex external world
|
|
|
Object Relations Theory (Klein, 1998) 'Depressive position'? Fail leads to? (Yeamans & Levy, 2002) |
Splitting leads to depressive position integration of internal images driven by individuals cognitive development and by the prevalence of good, satisfying experiences over bad, which help the individual tolerate some bad without the extreme reaction of hatred If integration to depressive poition fails, individual maintains split internal organisation, corresponds to borderline personality disorder (Yeamans & Levy, 2002) |
|
|
Object Relations Theory (Klein, 1998) High level of aggression |
High level of aggression in individual reinforces and perpetrates the split in order to protect the idealised objects from the possibility of destruction by the rage and hatred associated with the devalued objects
|
|
|
Object Relations Theory (Klein, 1998) Linking to stalking (Sansone & Sansone, 2010) |
Appropriate in cases of stalking Borderline personality disorders among stalkers make up between 4 and 45% of cases (Sansone & Sansone, 2010) Best illustrated is 'simple obsessional', >50% |
|
|
Object Relations Theory (Klein, 1998) Evaluation |
Provides fair developmental stucture: seems testable Phases theory offers reflect childhood development well: provide effective stepping stone into theory of attachment Able to make sense of stalker typologies well Theory loses validity and testibility upon making inferences on behalf of the infant Questionable if infants truly experience what theory suggests |
|
|
Attachment Theory Main ideas and consequences |
Used to explain dysfunctional relationships in general, stalking in particular Adult attachment strongly influenced by quality of parent-child relationship To function normally infant must have sexure ties caregiver, must be able to depend on caregiver while exploring world from a secure base Consequences of dysfunctional attachment in early developmental stages of interest: present problematic effects in later life |
|
|
Attachment Theory (Miller, 2012) (Feeney & Noller, 1994) |
Those who develop secure attachment develop feelings of security and confidence in later interpersonal relationships Those who encounter dysfunctional attachment become insecurely attached - they perceive world as cold/rejecting: develop avoidant attachment style: defensively decoupling emotionally away from caregiver; or anxious/ambivalent attachment style: simultaneously crave attachment to caregiver then recoil in fear of having connection torn/pushed away Insecure attachment: unable to accurately interpret social cues from partners: as a result individuals respond inappropriately: leads to relationship dissolution (Feeney & Noller, 1994) |
|
|
Attachment Theory (Follingstad et al., 2002) (Wigman., 2008) |
Anxiously attached: more likely to engage in physical and psychological abuse (Follingstad et al., 2002) jealously and surveillance (Wigman., 2008) Follingstad et al: anxious attachment resulting from early experiences resulted in development of angry temprament: led to controlling style and physical aggression |
|
|
Attachment Theory (Davis et al., 2003) |
Four studies found anxious attachment either relates directly to stalking or relationship is mediatd by conceptually relevant variables (i.e. degree of anger and jealousy at being rejected or degree of need to control one's intimate partner (Davis et al., 2003) Anxious attachment clearly empirically linked to degree of anger over rejection and to jealousy of perceived rivals |
|
|
Attachment Theory Bartholomew (1990) |
Bartholomew (1990): two-dimensional, four category conceptualisation of adult attachment Four attachment styles defined in terms of two dimensions: positive vs. negative model of self, and positive vs. negative model of others |
|
|
Attachment Theory Bartholomew (1990) |
Individuals with secure = characterised by positive model of self and positive model of others Comfortable with relationship intimacy, have internalised sense of self-worth Preoccupied: characterised by negative self-model and positive model of others Experience anxiety in R.Ships, seek approval Fearful: characterised by negative model of self and negative model of others Dependent on approval, yet avoid intimacy to avoid pain of rejection/loss |
|
|
Attachment Theory Bartholomew (1990) |
Dismissing: possess positive model of self and negative model of others Negative expectations of others lead to avoid closeness yet maintain sense of self-worth by denying value of close relationships Those who report engaging in stalking: score higher on 'nonsecure' and anxious attachment Other research: anxiosu attachment an indirect predictor of stalking, mediated by break-up anger/jealously (Dye & Davis, 2003) or by not being the break-up initiator and need for control (Davis et al 2000) |
|
|
Attachment Theory Dutton & Winstead (2006) |
Dutton & Winstead (2006): explored the 4 att categories in 389 uni students Preoccupied: most stalking; sig more than secure Anxious: more likely to try re-establish terminated rship: much self-worth and security tied to rship - shows anxious = indirect predictor Anxious leads to need for control, leads to break-up anger/jealousy (Dye & Davis, 2003) Best fit: love obsessional |
|
|
Attachment Theory Evaluation |
Widely used and developed re stalking Offers solid theoretical framework Infers a no. of assumptions: based on chood devleopment: children assumed to belong to a certain attachment category: assumed this then carried into adulthood Implies primary caregiver = female mother Theory needs to be widened: include more scope of variances and not limit to small generalisation |
