Attachment theory

Attachment theory originated in the work of John Bowlby. In infants it is primarily a process of proximity seeking to an identified attachment figure in situations of perceived distress or alarm. Infants become attached to adults who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with the infant, and who remain as consistent caregivers for some months during the period from about 6 months to two years of age. Parental responses lead to the development of patterns of attachment which in turn lead lead to 'internal working models' which will guide the individuals feelings thoughts and expectations in later relationships.[1]

In Bowlby's approach, the human infant has a need for a secure relationship with adult caregivers, without which normal social and emotional development will not occur. However, different relationship experiences can lead to different developmental outcomes. A number of attachment styles in infants with distinct characteristics have been identified known as secure attachment, avoidant attachment, anxious attachment and disorganized attachment. These can be measured in both infants and adults. In addition to care-seeking by children, attachment behaviours include peer relationships of all ages, romantic and sexual attraction, and responses to the care needs of infants or sick or elderly adults.

Attachment theory uses a set of assumptions to connect observable human social behaviors. These assumptions form a coherent whole that fits with available data. The following is a list of the assumptions that form the theory:[2]

1.Adaptiveness: Common human attachment behaviors and emotions are adaptive. Evolution of human beings has involved selection for social behaviors that make individual or group survival more likely. For example, the commonly observed attachment behavior of toddlers includes staying near familiar people; this behavior would have had safety advantages in the environment of early adaptation, and still has such advantages today.

2. Brain functions: Specific structures and functions of the central nervous system underlie at least some of human attachment behavior. For example, the preference of infants for looking at faces and eyes is based on brain and sensory functioning as it exists in the early months. Such brain characteristics are genetically controlled and therefore can be shared by all, or almost all, human beings, thus establishing basic behavioral tendencies that need not be learned.

3. Developmental changes: Specific attachment behaviors begin with predictable, apparently innate, behavior in infancy, but change with age in ways that are partly determined by experiences and by situational factors. For example, a toddler is likely to cry when separated from his mother, but an 8-year-old is more likely to call out, "When

are you coming back to pick me up?" and/or to turn away and begin the familiar school day.

4. Experience as essential factor in attachment: Infants in their first months have no preference for their biological parents over strangers and are equally friendly to anyone who treats them kindly. Preferences for particular people, and behaviors which solicit their attention and care, develop over a period of time.

5. Monotropy: Early steps in attachment take place most easily if the infant has one caregiver, or the occasional care of a small number of other people.

6. Social interactions as cause of attachment: Feeding and relief of an infant's pain do not cause an infant to become attached to a caregiver. Infants become attached to adults who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with the infant, and who remain as consistent caregivers for some time.

7. Transactional processes: As attachment behaviors change with age, they do so in ways shaped by relationships, not by individual experiences. A child's behavior when reunited with a caregiver after a separation is determined not only by how the caregiver has treated the child before, but on the history of effects the child has had on the caregiver in the past.

8. Critical period: Certain changes in attachment, such as the infant's coming to prefer a familiar caregiver and avoid strangers, are most likely to occur within a fairly narrow age range. The period between about 6 months of age and 2 or 3 years is the time during which attachment to specific caregivers is most likely to occur.

9.Robustness of development: Attachment to and preferences for some familiar people are easily developed by most young humans, even under far less than ideal circumstances.

10. Internal working model: Early experiences with caregivers gradually give rise to a system of thoughts, memories, beliefs, expectations, emotions, and behaviors about the self and others. This system, called the internal working model of social relationships, continues to develop with time and experience, enables the child to handle new types of social interactions. For example, a child's internal working model helps him or her to know that an infant should be treated differently from an older child, or to understand that interactions with a teacher can share some of the characteristics of an interaction with a parent. An adult's internal working model continues to develop and to help cope with friendships, marriage, and parenthood, all of which involve different behaviors and feelings. The internal working model is likely to owe much to the individual's early experiences with caregivers, but it can and does change with both real and vicarious experiences.

Attachment is an affectional tie that one person or animal forms between him/herself and another specific one (usually the parent) — a tie that binds them together in space and

endures over time.[3]. Attachment theory states that attachment is a developmental process based on the evolved adaptive tendency for young children to maintain proximity to a familiar person, called the attachment figure.[4] Attachment Theory has become the dominant theory used today in the study of infant and toddler behavior and in the fields of infant mental health, treatment of children, and related fields. Many evidence-based treatment approaches are based on applications of attachment theory.

History

The concept of infants' emotional attachment to caregivers has been known anecdotally for hundreds of years. Most early observers focused on the anxiety displayed by infants and toddlers when threatened with separation from a familiar caregiver. Freudian theory attempted a systematic consideration of infant attachment and attributed the infant's attempts to stay near the familiar person to motivation learned through feeding experiences. In the 1930s, the British developmentalist Ian Suttie put forward the suggestion that the child's need for affection was a primary one, not based on hunger or other physical gratifications [5]

The formal origin of attachment theory can be traced to the publication of two 1958 papers, one being John Bowlby's "the Nature of the Child's Tie to his Mother", in which the precursory concepts of "attachment" were introduced, and Harry Harlow's "the Nature of Love", based on the results of experiments which showed, approximately, that infant rhesus monkeys spent more time with soft mother-like dummies that offered no food than they did with dummies that provided a food source but were less pleasant to the touch.[6][7]

As John Bowlby began to formulate his concept of attachment, he was influenced by case studies such as one by David Levy [8] that associated an adopted child's lack of social emotion to her early emotional deprivation. Bowlby himself was interested in the role played in delinquency by poor early relationships, and explored this in a study of young thieves. [9]

Other sources that influenced Bowlby's thought included ethological studies such as those discussed by Tinbergen [10]. Tinbergen and his colleague Konrad Lorenz had examined the phenomenon of "imprinting" and felt that it might have some parallels to human attachment. Imprinting, a behavior characteristic of some birds and a very few mammals, involves rapid learning of recognition by a young bird or animal exposed to a conspecific or an object or organism that behaves suitably. The learning is possible only within a limited age period, known as a critical period. This rapid learning and development of familiarity with an animate or inanimate object is accompanied by a tendency to stay close to the object and to follow when it moves; the young creature is said to have been imprinted on the object when this occurs. As the imprinted bird or animal reaches reproductive maturity, its courtship behavior is directed toward objects that resemble the imprinting object. Bowlby's attachment concepts later included the ideas that attachment involves learning from experience during a limited age period, and that the learning that occurs during that time influences adult behavior. However, he did not apply the imprinting concept in its entirety to human attachment, nor assume that human

development was a simple as that of birds. He did, however, consider that attachment behavior was best explained as instinctive in nature.

Bowlby's view of attachment was also influenced by observations of young children separated from familiar caregivers, as provided during World War II by Anna Freud and her colleague Dorothy Burlingham [11] Observations of separated children's grief by Rene Spitz were another important factor in the development of attachment theory.[12]

The important concept of the internal working model of social relationships was adopted by Bowlby from the work of Kenneth Craik, the philosopher [13]. The theory of control systems (cybernetics), developing during the '30s and '40s, influenced Bowlby's thinking about attachment [14]. The young child's need for proximity to the attachment figure was seen as balancing homeostatically with the need for exploration. The actual distance maintained would be greater or less as the balance of needs changed; for example, the approach of a stranger, or an injury, would cause the child to seek proximity when a moment before he had been exploring at a distance.

Mary Ainsworth conducted research based on Bowlby's theory and devised the Strange Situation protocol, still used today to assess attachment style in children, as the laboratory portion of a larger study that included extensive home visitations over the first year of the child's life. This study identified three attachment patterns that a child may have with his primary attachment figure: secure, anxious-avoidant, and anxious-ambivalent.

Further research by Dr. Mary Main and colleagues (University of California at Berkeley) identified a fourth attachment pattern, called disorganized attachment, which reflects these children's lack of a coherent coping strategy.

Other recent research has followed children into the school environment, where securely attached children generally relate well to peers, ambivalently attached children tend to victimize peers and avoidantly attached children may be victimized by peers and be coy.[4][15][16] [17] These early studies focused on attachment between children and caregivers.

Although research on attachment behaviors continued after Bowlby's death, there was a period of time when attachment theory was considered to have run its course. Some authors argued that attachment should not be seen as a trait (lasting characteristic of the individual), but instead should be regarded as an organizing principle with varying behaviors resulting from contextual factors[18]. Related later research looked at cross-cultural differences in attachment, and concluded that there should be re-evaluation of the assumption that attachment is expressed identically in all humans [19]

Interest in attachment theory continued, and the theory was later extended to adult romantic relationships by Cindy Hazen and Phillip Shaver.[20] [21] [22]

Peter Fonagy and Mary Target have attempted to bring attachment theory and psychoanalysis into a closer relationship by way of such aspects of cognitive science as

mentalization, the ability to estimate what the beliefs or intentions of another person may be. [14]

A "natural experiment" has permitted extensive study of attachment issues, as researchers have followed the thousands of Romanian orphans who were adopted into Western families after the end of the Ceasescu regime. The English and Romanian Adoptees Study Team, led by Sir Michael Rutter, has followed some of the children into their teens, attemtping to unravel the effects of poor attachment, adoption and new relationships, and the physical and medical problems associated with their early lives. Studies on the Romanian adoptees, whose initial conditions were shocking, have in fact yielded reason for optimism. many of the children have developed quite well, and the researchers have noted that separation from familiar people is only one of many factors that help to determine the quality of development. [23]

Basic attachment theory

It has been suggested for many years that children develop different styles of attachment based on experiences and interactions with their primary caregivers. Researchers have developed various ways of assessing attachment in children, including the Strange Situation Protocol developed by Mary Ainsworth and story-based approaches such as Attachment Story Completion Test. Four different attachment styles have been identified in children: secure, anxious-ambivalent, anxious-avoidant, and disorganized. (For research purposes, Avoidant (insecure), Secure and Resistant/Ambivalent (insecure) are called A,B and C respectively. Group D, Disorganized/disoriented (insecure) attachment was added later when it became apparent some infants did not fit A,B or C. [24])

Secure Attachment - The child protests the mother's departure and quiets promptly on the mother's return, accepting comfort from her and returning to exploration.

Avoidant Attachment - The child shows little to no signs of distress at the mother's departure, a willingness to explore the toys, and little to no visible response to the mother's return.

Ambivalent Attachment - The child shows sadness on the mother's departure, ability to be picked up by the stranger and even 'warm' to the stranger, and on the mother's return, some ambivalence, signs of anger, reluctance to 'warm' to her and return to play.

Disorganized Attachment - The child presents stereotypes upon the mother's return after separation, such as freezing for several seconds or rocking. This appears to indicate the child's lack of coherent coping strategy. Children who are classified as disorganized are also given a classification as secure, ambivalent or avoidant based on their overall reunion behavior.

Additionally, the attachment patterns observed in children are correlated with certain behavior patterns and communication styles in the attachment figure:

Secure Attachment - The attachment figure responds appropriately, promptly and consistently to the emotional as well as the physical needs of the child. She helps her child to transition and regulate stress, and as a result, the child uses her as a secure base in the home environment.

Avoidant Attachment - The attachment figure shows little response to the child when distressed. She discourages her child from crying and encourages independence and exploration. The avoidantly attached child may have lower quality play than the securely attached child.

Ambivalent Attachment - The attachment figure is inconsistent with her child; she may at some times be appropriate and at other times neglectful to the child. The child raised in an ambivalent relationship becomes preoccupied with the mother's availability and cannot explore his environment freely or use his mother as a secure base. The ambivalently attached child is vulnerable to difficulty coping with life stresses and may display role reversal with the mother.

Disorganized Attachment - This can be associated with frightened/disoriented behaviour, intrusiveness/negativity and withdrawal, role/boundary confusion, affective communication errors and child maltreatment.

Changes in attachment after the infant-toddler period

According to Bowlby's theory, the child's early experience of social interactions with familiar people leads to the development of an internal working model of social relationships, a set of ideas and feelings that establish the individual's expectations about relationships, the behavior of others toward him or her, and the behaviors appropriate for him or her to show to others. The internal working model continues to develop and become more complex with age, cognitive growth, and continued social experience. As the internal working model of relationships advances, attachment-related behaviors lose some of the characteristics so typical of the infant-toddler period, and take on a series of age-related tendencies. Basically, Bowlby's Attachment theory states that the relationship a child has with his or her primary care-giver determines the pattern of relationships he or she will have in adulthood.

It should be noted that some authors have suggested continuous rather than categorical gradations between attachment patterns, and have discussed dimensions of underlying security rather than the classifications derived from Ainsworth's work [5]

Some commentators have provided a more extensive discussion of the development of attachment behavior and the internal working model after the toddler period [5] They suggest that the preschool period involves the use of negotiation, bargaining, and compromise as part of attachment behavior, and that these social skills ideally become

incorporated into the internal working model of social relationships, to be used with other children and later with adult peers. As children move into the school years, most develop a goal-corrected partnership with parents, in which each partner is willing to give up some desires in order to maintain the relationship in a gratifying form. Incorporation of this type of partnership into the internal working model prepares the growing child for later mature friendships, marriage, and parenthood. The mature internal working model of social relationships thus advances far beyond the basic desire to maintain proximity to familiar people, although this type of behavior may continue to be present in times of threat or pain.

Attachment in adults is commonly measured using the Adult Attachment Interview and self-report questionnaires. Self-report questionnaires have identified two dimensions of attachment, one dealing with anxiety about the relationship, and the other dealing with avoidance in the relationship. These dimensions define four styles of adult attachment: secure, preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant.

There are a wide variety of attachment measures used in adult attachment research. The most popular measure in the social psychological research is the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised scale. This scale treats attachment as two dimensions: anxiety and avoidance. The Adult Attachment interview is also commonly used to assess an individual's ability to discuss previous relationships with attachment figures. The interview consists of 36 questions, varying in detail from basic background information to instances of loss and trauma (if any). An independently trained coder determines the consistency of the individual's descriptions based on emotion regulation and content of information in the interview. Developmental psychologists use the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; George,Kaplan, & Main) or the Adult Attachment Projective (AAP; George, West, & Pettem). The AAI is an interview about attachment experiences that gets recorded and analysed for attachment status. The AAP is a guided interview which uses vague drawings about which the individual can tell a story. The story responses are recorded and decoded for attachment status. Generally attachment style is used by social psychologists interested in romantic attachment, and attachment status by developmental psychologists interested in the individual's state of mind with respect to attachment. The latter is more stable, while the former fluctuates more.

Attachment in adult romantic relationships

Hazan and Shaver extended attachment theory to adult romantic relationships in 1987. It was originally characterized by three dimensions: secure, anxious/ambivalent and avoidant. Later research showed that attachment is best thought of as two different dimensions: anxiety and avoidance. These dimensions are often drawn as an X and Y axis. In this model secure individuals are low in both anxiety and avoidance. Thus, attachment can also be broken down into four categories: secure, anxious-ambivalent (preoccupied), avoidant (dismissive), and fearful-avoidant. However, people's attachment varies continuously so most researchers do not currently think in terms of categories.

Attachment research into romantic relationships has led to a wide variety of findings. Mario Mikulincer has shown through a wide variety of studies that attachment influences how well people are able to cope with stress in their life. Nancy Collins and colleagues have shown that attachment influences many kinds of care-giving behavior. Jeff Simpson and Steve Rholes have conducted a number of studies showing that attachment influences how people parent their newborn children and how well they are able to cope with the stress of having a newborn child.

Attachment disorderMain article: Attachment disorder

Attachment disorder is an ambiguous term used in many different ways. One use is to refer to an inability to form normal attachments with caregivers during childhood. This may have adverse effects throughout the lifespan. Results of a study showed a positive and strong correlation between the security of the child-mother attachment representation and positiveness of self. It also showed significant and positive correlations between positiveness of self to competence and social acceptance, to behavioral adjustment at school, and to behavioral manifestations of self-esteem.[25] Attachment disorder is also sometimes used to refer to Reactive attachment disorder, the only 'official' clinical diagnosis, and on occasion to refer to the less desirable attachment styles.

Reactive attachment disorder

Reactive Attachment Disorder — sometimes referred to by its initials, "RAD" — is a psychiatric diagnosis (DSM-IV-TR 313.89, ICD-10 F94.1/2). The essential feature of Reactive Attachment Disorder is markedly disturbed and developmentally inappropriate social relatedness in most contexts that begins before age 5 years and is associated with gross pathological care. There are two subtypes, one reflecting the disinhibited attachment pattern and the other reflecting the inhibited pattern.

Criticism

Criticism of Bowlby's view of attachment has been sporadic. One critic questioned the suggestion that early attachment history had a lifelong impact. [5] Another discussed how mother and child could provide each other with positive reinforcement experiences through their mutual attention and therefore learn to stay close together; this explanation would make it unnecessary to posit innate human characteristics fostering attachment. [5] A recent critic is J. R. Harris [1] , who is generally concerned with the concept of infant determinism and stresses the effects of later experience on personality.

1. Bretherton,I. and Munholland,K., A. Internal Working Models in Attachment Relationships: A Construct Revisited. Handbook of Attachment:Theory, Research and Clinical Applications 1999eds Cassidy,J. and Shaver, P., R. Guilford press ISBN 1-57230-087-6

2. ̂ Mercer, J (2006). Understanding attachment: Parenting, child care, and emotional development. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. LCCN 2005019272. ISBN 0-275-98217-3. OCLC 61115448. 

3. ̂ Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton (1974) "Infant-mother attachment". In M.P.M. Richards (Ed.) Integration of a child into a social world.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

4. ^ a b Bowlby J [1969] (1999). Attachment, 2nd edition, Attachment and Loss (vol. 1), New York: Basic Books. LCCN 00266879; NLM 8412414. ISBN 0-465-00543-8 (pbk). OCLC 11442968. 

5. ^ a b c d e Suttie, I. (1935) 'the origins of love and hate.' London: Penguin. 6. ̂ Bowlby, J. (2005). The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. Routledge Classics.

ISBN 0-415-35481-1.  7. ̂ The Nature of Love (1958) - Harry Harlow, American Psychologist, 13, 573-685 8. ̂ Levy, D. (1935). American Journal of Psychiatry, 94:643-x 9. ̂ Bowlby,J. (1944). "Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their characters and home life."

International Journal of Psychoanalysis,25:19-52,107-127 (sometimes referred to by Bowlby's colleagues as "Ali Bowlby and the Forty Thieves.")

10. ̂ Tinbergen, N., & Tinbergen, E. (1983) CITATION NEEDED] 11. ̂ Freud,A., & Burlingham, D.T. (1943). War and children. Medical War Books.  12. ̂ Spitz, Rene (1945). Hospitalism: An Inquiry into the Genesis of Psychiatric Conditions

in Early Childhood.  13. ̂ Craik, K. (1943) The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. 14. ^ a b Robbins, P., & Zacks, J.M. (2007)"Attachment theory and cognitive science:

Commentary on Fonagy and Target", Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 55(2):909-920.

15. ̂ Bowlby J (1973). Separation: Anxiety & Anger, Attachment and Loss (vol. 2); (International psycho-analytical library no.95). London: Hogarth Press. ISBN 0712666214 (pbk). ISBN 0-70120-301-3. OCLC 8353942. 

16. ̂ Bowlby J (1980). Loss: Sadness & Depression, Attachment and Loss (vol. 3); (International psycho-analytical library no.109). London: Hogarth Press. ISBN 0-465-04238-4 (pbk). ISBN 0-70120-350-1. OCLC 59246032. 

17. ̂ Bretherton I (Sep 1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology 28 (5): 759-775. ISSN 0012-1649. 

18. ̂ Sroufe, L.A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 48:1184-1199

19. ̂ Tronick, E.Z., Morelli, G.A., & Ivey, P.K. (1992). "The Efe forager infant and toddler's pattern of social relationships: Multiple and simultaneous." Developmental Psychology, 28:568-577

20. ̂ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

21. ̂ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270-280.

22. ̂ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.

23. ̂ Rutter, M (Jan/Feb 2002). Nature, nurture, and development: From evangelism through science toward policy and practice. Child Development 73 (1): 1-21. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00388. ISSN 0009-3920. PMID 14717240. 

24. ̂ Main,M and Solomon,J. (1986)'Discovery of an insecure disoriented attachment pattern: procedures,findings and implications for the classification of behavior.' Affective Development in Infancy, ed. T. Brazelton and M. Youngman, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

25. ̂ Verschueren K; Marcoen A; Schoefs V (Oct 1996). The internal working model of the self, attachment, and competence in five-year-olds. Child Development 67 (5): 2493-2511. doi:10.2307/1131636. ISSN 0009-3920. PMID 9022252. 

26. Barrett, H. (2006) Attachment and the perils of parenting: a commentary and a critique. National Family and Parenting Institute, London, UK.

27. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P., (Eds). (1999) Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. Guilford Press, NY.

28. Greenberg, MT, Cicchetti, D., & Cummings, EM., (Eds) (1990) Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research and Intervention University of Chicago, Chicago.

29. Greenspan, S. (1993) Infancy and Early Childhood. Madison, CT: International Universities Press. ISBN 0-8236-2633-4.

30. Holmes J (1993). John Bowlby and attachment theory, Makers of modern psychotherapy. London; New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-07730-3 (pbk). ISBN 0-415-07729-X. OCLC 27266442. 

31. Holmes, J. (2001) The Search for the Secure Base: Attachment Theory and Psychotherapy. London: Brunner-Routledge. ISBN 1-58391-152-9.

32. Karen R (1998) Becoming Attached: First Relationships and How They Shape Our Capacity to Love. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-511501-5.

33. Parkes, CM, Stevenson-Hinde, J., Marris, P., (Eds.) (1991) Attachment Across The Life Cycle Routledge. NY. ISBN 0-415-05651-9

34. Siegler R., DeLoache, J. & Eisenberg, N. (2003) How Children develop. New York: Worth. ISBN 1-57259-249-4.

35. Attachment & Human Development. ISSN 1469-2988. 36. Infant Mental Health Journal.

External links

Attachment in children deals with the theory of attachment between children and their caregivers, and particularly with behaviors and emotions that children direct toward familiar adults. It is primarily an evolutionary and ethological theory, whereby infants seek proximity to a specified attachment figure in situations of distress or alarm for the purpose of survival. [1]

Attachment theory has led to a new understanding of child development. Children develop different styles of attachment based on experiences and interactions with their caregivers. Four different attachment styles have been identified in children: secure, anxious-ambivalent, anxious-avoidant, and disorganized. Attachment theory has become the dominant theory used today in the study of infant and toddler behavior and in the fields of infant mental health, treatment of children, and related fields.

Attachement styles in children

On the basis of their behaviours, children can be categorized into four groups. Each of these groups reflects a different kind of attachment relationship with the mother. It should be noted that Bowlby believed that mothers were the primary attachment figure in

children's lives, but subsequent research has confirmed that children form attachments to both their mothers and their fathers. A child may have a different type of attachment to each parent as well as to unrelated caregivers. Attachment style is thus not so much a part of the child's thinking, but is characteristic of a specific relationship. However, after about age four the child exhibits one primary consistent pattern of attachment in relationships [2]

The most researched method for assessing an older infant or toddler's style of attachment with a care giver is the Strange Situation Protocol, developed by Mary Ainsworth (see Patterns of Attachment). Assessment of attachment in infants younger than about 8 months, or children older than about three years, is not possible with this protocol. A new form of assessment, the Interesting-but-Scary paradigm developed by Forbes et al., provides categorization that is similar to the Strange situation. In addition, the Attachment Story Completion test and several other protocols exist to assess the pattern of attachment among children and teenagers Adults' pattern of attachment can be assessed with the Adult Attachment Interview[3].

Bowlby, like many of his colleagues at the time, infused the gender norms of the day into otherwise unbiased scientific research. Modern studies use a variety of standardized interviews, questionnaires, and tests to identify attachment styles. See also: Allomother theory [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] The most commonly used procedures for children are the Strange Situation Protocol and various narrative approaches and structured observational methods. [9] [10]

A frequently used method of assessing attachment styles in adults is the Adult Attachment Interview developed by Mary Main and Erik Hesse. [11] Attachment styles in adults can also be assessed using a questionnaire developed by Shaver and colleagues. All of these methods can be used to classify people into the classic attachment styles described below.

Readers curious about their own attachment style can take the questionnaire developed by Shaver and colleagues at this page.

Secure attachment

A toddler who is securely attached to its parent (or other familiar caregiver) will explore freely while the parent is present, will engage with strangers, will be visibly upset when the parent departs, and happy to see the parent return. The extent of exploration and of distress are affected by the child's temperamental make-up and by situational factors as well as by attachment status, however.

In the traditional Ainsworth et al. (1978)[12] coding of the Strange Situation, secure infants are denoted as "Group B" infants and they are further subclassified as B1, B2, B3, and B4. Although these subgroupings refer to different stylistic responses to the comings and goings of the caregiver, they were not given specific labels by Ainsworth and colleagues, although their descriptive behaviors led others (including students of Ainsworth) to

devise a relatively 'loose' terminology for these subgroups. B1's have been referred to as 'secure-reserved', B2's as 'secure-inhibited', B3's as 'secure balanced,' and B4's as 'secure-reactive.' In academic publications however, the classification of infants (if subgroups are denoted) is typically simply "B1" or "B2" although more theoretical and review-oriented papers surrounding attachment theory may use the above terminology.

Securely attached children are best able to explore when they have the knowledge of a secure base to return to in times of need (also known as "rapprochement", meaning in French "bring together"). When assistance is given, this bolsters the sense of security and also, assuming the parent's assistance is helpful, educates the child in how to cope with the same problem in the future. Therefore, secure attachment can be seen as the most adaptive attachment style. According to some psychological researchers, a child becomes securely attached when the parent is available and able to meet the needs of the child in a responsive and appropriate manner. Others have pointed out that there are also other determinants of the child's attachment, and that behavior of the parent may in turn be influenced by the child's behavior.

Anxious-resistant insecure attachment

A child with an anxious-resistant attachment style is anxious of exploration and of strangers, even when the parent is present. When the mother departs, the child is extremely distressed. The child will be ambivalent when she returns - seeking to remain close to the parent but resentful, and also resistant when the parent initiates attention.

According to some psychological researchers, this style develops from a parenting style which is engaged but on the parent's own terms. That is, sometimes the child's needs are ignored until some other activity is completed and that attention is sometimes given to the child more through the needs of the parent than from the child's initiation.

Anxious-avoidant insecure attachment

A child with an anxious-avoidant attachment style will avoid or ignore the parent - showing little emotion when the parent departs or returns. The child will not explore very much regardless of who is there. Strangers will not be treated much differently from the parent. There is not much emotional range displayed regardless of who is in the room or if it is empty.

This style of attachment develops from a parenting style which is more disengaged. The child's needs are frequently not met and the child comes to believe that communication of needs has no influence on the parent.

Disorganized attachment

A fourth category termed disorganized attachment (Main & Solomon, 1990) [13] is actually the lack of a coherent style or pattern for coping. While ambivalent and avoidant styles are not totally effective, they are organized strategies for dealing with the world.

Evidence from Main et al. has suggested that children with disorganized attachment may experience their caregivers as either frightening or frightened. A frightened caregiver is alarming to the child, who uses social referencing techniques such as checking the adult's facial expression to ascertain whether a situation is safe. A frightening caregiver is usually so via aggressive behaviors towards the child (either mild or direct physical/sexual behaviors) and puts the child in a dilemma which Main and colleagues have called 'fear without solution.' In other words, the caregiver is both the source of the child's alarm as well as the child's haven of safety. Through parental behaviors that are frightening, the caregiver puts the child in an irresolvable paradox of approach-avoidance. This paradox, in fact, may be one explanation for some of the 'stilling' and 'freezing' behaviors observed in children judged to be disorganized. Human interactions are experienced as erratic, thus children cannot form a coherent, organized interactive template. If the child uses the caregiver as a mirror to understand the self, the disorganized child is looking into a mirror broken into a thousand pieces. It is more severe than learned helplessness as it is the model of the self rather than of a situation. It is important to note that when a child is judged disorganized, he or she is given a secondary best-fitting 'organized' (i.e., secure, ambivalent, avoidant) classification as well. This reflects the fact that attachment disorganization is thought to be a breakdown of an inchoate organized attachment strategy. The degree to which the organized strategy is fragmented however is often different in degree across infants judged to receive a primary 'disorganized' classification.

This was not one of Ainsworth's initial three categories, but identified by Mary Main and Judith Solomon (see earlier reference) in research following the original tripartite system developed by Ainsworth et al. (1978). [12]

Attachment and Treatment

Attachment theory has become the dominant theory used today in the study of infant and toddler behavior and in the fields of infant mental health, treatment of children, and related fields. Several evidence-based and effective treatments are based on attachment theory. Nearly all mainstream programs for the prevention and treatment of disorders of attachment use attachment theory. Various organizations have adopted standards against the use of coercive interventions. See attachment therapy.

References

1. ̂ Tronick, Morelli, & Ivey, 1992, p.568. "Until recently, scientific accounts ... of the infant's early social experiences converged on the view that the infant progresses from a primary relationship with one individual... to relationships with a growing number of people... This is an epigenetic, hierarchical view of social development. We have labeled this dominant view the continuous care and contact model (CCC...). The CCC model developed from the writings of Spitz..., Bowlby..., and Provence and Lipton... on institutionalized children and is represented in the psychological views of Bowlby...[and others]. Common to the different conceptual frameworks is the belief that parenting practices and the infant's capacity for social engagement are biologically based and

conform to a prototypical form. Supporters of the CCC model generally recognize that the infant and caregiver are able to adjust to a range of conditions, but they consider the adjustments observed to reflect biological variation. However, more extreme views (e.g., maternal bonding) consider certain variants as nonadaptive and as compromising the child's psychological development. Bowlby's concept of monotropism is an exemplar of the CCC perspective..." (Tronick, Morelli, & Ivey, 1992, p. 568).

2. ̂ J. Cassidy & P. Shaver, (1999) Handbook of Attachment, NY:Guilford 3. ̂ Hesse, E., (1999) Adult Attachment Interview in J. Cassidy & P. Shaver, (Eds.)

Handbook of Attachment NY:Guilford Press 4. ̂ Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults:

A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.

5. ̂ Bartholomew, K., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Measures of attachment: Do they converge? In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 25-45). New York: Guilford Press.

6. ̂ Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.

7. ̂ Crowell, J. A., & Treboux, D. (1995). A review of adult attachment measures: Implications for theory and research. Social Development, 4, 294-327.

8. ̂ Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350-365.

9. ̂ Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S., (1978). Patterns of Attachment. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ., 1978.

10. ̂ Forbes, L.M., Evans, E.M., Moran, G., & Pederson, D.R. (2007). Change in atypical maternal behavior predicts change in attachment disorganization from 12 to 24 months in a high-risk sample. Child development, 78(3), 955-971.

11. ̂ Hesse, E., (1999). The Adult Attachment Interview in Jude Cassidy & Phillip Shaver (Eds.) Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. Guilford Press, NY pp. 395-433.

12. ^ a b Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

13. ̂ Main, M & Solomon, J., (1990). In Greenberg, M. T., Cicchetti, D., & Cummings, M. (Eds.),. Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121-160). The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Attachment in adults deals with the theory of attachment in adult romantic relationships.

Attachment theory was extended to adult romantic relationships in the late 1980s. Four styles of attachment have been identified in adults: secure, anxious-preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant. Investigators have explored the organization and the stability of mental working models that underlie these attachment styles. They have also explored how attachment impacts relationship outcomes and how attachment functions in relationship dynamics.

John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth founded modern attachment theory on studies of children and their caregivers. Children and caregivers remained the primary focus of

attachment theory for many years. Then, in the late 1980s, Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver applied attachment theory to adult romantic relationships. [1] [2] [3] Hazan and Shaver noticed that interactions between adult romantic partners shared similarities to interactions between children and caregivers. For example, romantic partners desire to be close to one another. Romantic partners feel comforted when their partners are present and anxious or lonely when their partners are absent. Romantic relationships serve as a secure base that help partners face the surprises, opportunities, and challenges life presents. Similarities such as these led Hazan and Shaver to extend attachment theory to adult romantic relationships.

Of course, relationships between adult romantic partners differ in many ways from relationships between children and caregivers. The claim is not that these two kinds of relationships are identical. The claim is that the core principles of attachment theory apply to both kinds of relationships.

Investigators tend to describe the core principles of attachment theory in light of their own theoretical interests. Their descriptions seem quite different on a superficial level. For example, Fraley and Shaver [4] describe the "central propositions" of attachment in adults as follows:

The emotional and behavioral dynamics of infant-caregiver relationships and adult romantic relationships are governed by the same biological system.

The kinds of individual differences observed in infant-caregiver relationships are similar to the ones observed in romantic relationships.

Individual differences in adult attachment behavior are reflections of the expectations and beliefs people have formed about themselves and their close relationships on the basis of their attachment histories; these "working models" are relatively stable and, as such, may be reflections of early care giving experiences.

Romantic love, as commonly conceived, involves the interplay of attachment, care giving, and sex.

Compare this to the five "core propositions" of attachment theory listed by Rholes and Simpson: [5]

Although the basic impetus for the formation of attachment relationships is provided by biological factors, the bonds that children form with their caregivers are shaped by interpersonal experience.

Experiences in earlier relationships create internal working models and attachment styles that systematically affect attachment relationships.

The attachment orientations of adult caregivers influence the attachment bond their children have with them.

Working models and attachment orientations are relatively stable over time, but they are not impervious to change.

Some forms of psychological maladjustment and clinical disorders are attributable in part to the effects of insecure working models and attachment styles.

While these two lists clearly reflect the theoretical interests of the investigators who created them, a closer look reveals a number of shared themes. The shared themes claim that:

People are biologically driven to form attachments with others, but the process of forming attachments is influenced by learning experiences.

Individuals form different kinds of attachments depending on the expectations and beliefs they have about their relationships. These expectations and beliefs constitute internal "working models" used to guide relationship behaviors.

Internal "working models" are relatively stable even though they can be influenced by experience.

Individual differences in attachment can contribute positively or negatively to mental health and to quality of relationships with others.

No doubt these themes could be described in a variety of ways (and other themes added to the list). Regardless of how one describes the core principles of attachment theory, the key insight is that the same principles of attachment apply to close relationships throughout the lifespan. The principles of attachment between children and caregivers are fundamentally the same as the principles of attachment between adult romantic partners.

Attachment Styles

Adults have four attachment styles: secure, anxious-preoccupied, dismissive avoidant, and fearful avoidant. The secure attachment style in adults corresponds to the secure attachment style in children. The anxious-preoccupied attachment style in adults corresponds to the anxious/ambivalent attachment style in children. However, the dismissive avoidant attachment style and the fearful avoidant attachment style, which are distinct in adults, correspond to a single avoidant attachment style in children. The descriptions of adult attachment styles offered below are based on the relationship questionnaire devised by Bartholomew and Horowitz [6] and on a review of studies by Pietromonaco and Barrett. [7]

Secure Attachment

Securely attached people tend to agree with the following statements: "It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me. I don't worry about being alone or having others not accept me." This style of attachment usually results from a history of warm and responsive interactions with relationship partners. Securely attached people tend to have positive views of themselves and their partners. They also tend to have positive views of their relationships. Often they report greater satisfaction and adjustment in their relationships than people with other attachment styles. Securely attached people feel comfortable both with intimacy and with independence. Many seek to balance intimacy and independence in their relationships.

Anxious-Preoccupied Attachment

People who are anxious or preoccupied with attachment tend to agree with the following statements: "I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don't value me as much as I value them." People with this style of attachment seek high levels of intimacy, approval, and responsiveness from their partners. They sometimes value intimacy to such an extent that they become overly dependent on their partners—a condition colloquially termed clinginess. Compared to securely attached people, people who are anxious or preoccupied with attachment tend to have less positive views about themselves. They often doubt their worth as a partner and blame themselves for their partners' lack of responsiveness. They also have less positive views about their partners because they do not trust in people's good intentions. People who are anxious or preoccupied with attachment may experience high levels of emotional expressiveness, worry, and impulsiveness in their relationships.

Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment

People with a dismissive style of avoidant attachment tend to agree with these statements: "I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me." People with this attachment style desire a high level of independence. The desire for independence often appears as an attempt to avoid attachment altogether. They view themselves as self-sufficient and invulnerable to feelings associated with being closely attached to others. They often deny needing close relationships. Some may even view close relationships as relatively unimportant. Not surprisingly, they seek less intimacy with relationship partners, whom they often view less positively than they view themselves. Investigators commonly note the defensive character of this attachment style. People with a dismissive-avoidant attachment tend to suppress and hide their feelings, and they tend to deal with rejection by distancing themselves from the sources of rejection (i.e., their relationship partners).

Fearful-Avoidant Attachment

People with a fearful style of avoidant attachment tend to agree with the following statements: "I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I sometimes worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others." People with this attachment style have mixed feelings about close relationships. On the one hand, they desire to have emotionally close relationships. On the other hand, they tend to feel uncomfortable with emotional closeness. These mixed feelings are combined with negative views about themselves and their partners. They commonly view themselves as unworthy of responsiveness from their partners, and they don't trust the intentions of their partners. Similarly to the dismissive-avoidant attachment style, people with a fearful-avoidant attachment style seek less intimacy from partners and frequently suppress and hide their feelings.

Working models

Bowlby theorized that children learn from their interactions with caregivers. Over the course of many interactions, children form expectations about the accessibility and helpfulness of their caregivers. These expectations reflect children's thoughts about themselves and about their caregivers:

"Confidence that an attachment figure is, apart from being accessible, likely to be responsive can be seen to turn on at least two variables: (a) whether or not the attachment figure is judged to be the sort of person who in general responds to calls for support and protection; (b) whether or not the self is judged to be the sort of person towards whom anyone, and the attachment figure in particular, is likely to respond in a helpful way. Logically, these variables are independent. In practice they are apt to be confounded. As a result, the model of the attachment figure and the model of the self are likely to develop so as to be complementary and mutually confirming." (Bowlby, 1973, page 238 ) [8]

Children's thoughts about their caregivers, together with thoughts about themselves as deserving good caregivers, form working models of attachment. Working models help guide behavior by allowing children to anticipate and plan for caregiver responses. Once formed, Bowlby theorized that working models remain relatively stable. Children usually interpret experiences in light of their working models rather than change their working models to fit new experiences. Only when experiences cannot be interpreted in light of working models do children modify their working models.

When Hazen and Shaver extended attachment theory to adults, they included the idea of working models. Research into adult working models has focused on two issues. First, how are the thoughts that form working models organized in the mind? Second, how stable are working models across time? These questions are briefly discussed below.

Organization of working models

Bartholomew and Horowitz have proposed that working models consist of two parts. [9] One part deals with thoughts about the self. The other part deals with thoughts about others. They further propose that a person's thoughts about self are generally positive or generally negative. The same applies to a person's thoughts about others. Thoughts about others are generally positive or generally negative. In order to test these proposals, Bartholomew and Horowitz have looked at the relationship between attachment styles, self-esteem, and sociability. The diagram below shows the relationships they observed:

The secure and dismissive attachment styles are associated with higher self-esteem compared to the anxious and fearful attachment styles. This corresponds to the distinction between positive and negative thoughts about the self in working models. The secure and anxious attachment styles are associated with higher sociability than the dismissive or fearful attachment styles. This corresponds to the distinction between positive and negative thoughts about others in working models. These results suggested working models indeed contain two distinct domains--thoughts about self and thoughts about others--and that each domain can be characterized as generally positive or generally negative.

Baldwin and colleagues have applied the theory of relational schemas to working models of attachment. Relational schemas contain information about the way partners regularly interact with each other. [10] [11] For each pattern of interaction that regularly occurs between partners, a relational schema is formed that contains:

information about the self information about the partner information about the way the interaction usually unfolds.

For example, if a person regularly asks his or her partner for a hug or kiss, and the partner regularly responds with a hug or kiss, the person forms a relational schema representing the predictable interaction. The schema contains information about the self (e.g., "I need lots of physical affection"). It also contains information about the partner (e.g., "My partner is an affectionate person"). And it contains information about the way the interaction usually unfolds, which can be summarized by an IF-THEN statement (e.g., "IF I ask my partner for a hug or kiss, THEN my partner will respond with a hug or kiss and comfort me"). Relational schemas help guide behavior in relationships by allowing people to anticipate and plan for partner responses.

Baldwin and colleagues have proposed that working models of attachment are composed of relational schemas. The fact that relational schemas contain information about the self and information about others is consistent with previous conceptions of working models. The unique contribution of relational schemas to working models is the information about the way interactions with partners usually unfold. Relational schemas add the IF-THEN statements about interactions to working models. To demonstrate that working models are organized as relational schemas, Baldwin and colleagues created a set of written scenarios that described interactions dealing with trust, dependency and closeness. [12] For example, the scenarios for closeness included:

You want to spend more time with your partner. You reach out to hug or kiss your partner. You tell your partner how deeply you feel for him or her.

Following each scenario, people were presented with two options about how their partners might respond. One option was "he/she accepts you." The other option was "he/she rejects you." People were asked to rate the likelihood of each response on a seven point scale. Ratings of likely partner responses corresponded to people's attachment styles. People with secure attachment styles were more likely to expect accepting responses from their partners. Their relational schema for the third closeness scenario would be, "IF I tell my partner how deeply I feel for him or her, THEN my partner will accept me." People with other attachment styles were less likely to expect accepting responses from their partners. Their relational schema for the third closeness scenario would be, "IF I tell my partner how deeply I feel for him or her, THEN my partner will reject me." Differences in attachment styles reflected differences in relational schemas. Relational schemas may therefore be used to understand the organization of working models of attachment, as has been demonstrated in subsequent studies. [13] [14] [15]

The relational schemas involved in working models are likely organized into a hierarchy. According to Baldwin:

"A person may have a general working model of relationships, for instance, to the effect that others tend to be only partially and unpredictably responsive to one's needs. At a more specific level, this expectation will take different forms when considering different role relationships, such as customer or romantic partner. Within romantic relationships, expectations might then vary significantly depending on the specific partner, or the specific situation, or the specific needs being expressed." (Baldwin, 1992, page 429). [10]

The highest level of the hierarchy contains very general relational schemas that apply to all relationships. The next level of the hierarchy contains relational schemas that apply to particular kinds of relationships. The lowest level of the hierarchy contains relationship schemas that apply to specific relationships.

In fact, several theorists have proposed a hierarchical organization of working models. [16]

[17] [18] [19] [20] Pietromonaco and Barrett note:

"From this perspective, people do not hold a single set of working models of the self and others; rather, they hold a family of models that include, at higher levels, abstract rules or assumptions about attachment relationships and, at lower levels, information about specific relationships and events within relationships. These ideas also imply that working models are not a single entity but are multifaceted representations in which information at one level need not be consistent with information at another level." (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2000, page 159) [21]

Every hierarchy for working models includes both general working models (higher in the hierarchy) and relationship-specific working models (lower in the hierarchy). Studies have supported the existence of both general working models and relationship-specific working models. People can report a general attachment style when asked to do so, and the majority of their relationships are consistent with their general attachment style. [14] A general attachment style indicates a general working model that applies to many relationships. Yet, people also report different styles of attachments to their friends, parents, and lovers. [22] [23] Relationship-specific attachment styles indicate relationship-specific working models. Evidence that general working models and relationship-specific working models are organized into a hierarchy comes from a study by Overall, Fletcher, and Friesen. [24] Findings from this study support a three-tier hierarchy of working models. The highest level of the hierarchy consists of a global working model. The next level of the hierarchy contains working models for different types of relationships (e.g., friends, parents, lovers). The lowest level in the hierarchy consists of working models for each specific relationship.

In summary, the mental working models that underlie attachment styles appear to contain information about self and information about others organized into relational schemas. The relational schemas are themselves organized into a three-tier hierarchy. The highest level of the hierarchy contains relational schemas for a general working model that applies to all relationships. The middle level of the hierarchy contains relational schemas for working models that apply to different types of relationships (e.g., friends, parents, lovers). The lowest level of the hierarchy contains relational schemas for working models of specific relationships.

Stability of working models

Investigators study the stability of working models by looking at the stability of attachment styles. Attachment styles reflect the thoughts and expectations that constitute working models. Changes in attachment styles therefore indicate changes in working models.

Around 70-80 percent of people experience no significant changes in attachment styles over time. [25] [13] [26] [27] [28] The fact that attachment styles do not change for a majority of people indicates working models are relatively stable. Yet, around 20-30 percent of people do experience changes in attachment styles. These changes can occur over periods of weeks or months. The number of people who experience changes in attachment styles, and the short periods over which the changes occur, suggest working models are not rigid personality traits.

Why attachment styles change is not well understood. Waters, Weinfield and Hamilton propose that negative life experiences often cause changes in attachment styles. [29] Their proposal is supported by evidence that people who experience negative life events also tend to experience changes in attachment styles. [25] [30] [31] Davila, Karney and Bradbury have identified four sets of factors that might cause changes in attachment styles: (a) situational events and circumstances, (b) changes in relational schema, (c) personality variables, and (d) combinations of personality variables and situational events. [32] They conducted a study to see which set of factors best explained changes in attachment styles. Interestingly, the study found that all four sets of factors cause changes in attachment styles. Changes in attachment styles are complex and depend on multiple factors.

Relationship outcomes

Adult romantic relationships vary in their outcomes. The partners of some relationships express more satisfaction than the partners of other relationships. The partners of some relationships stay together longer than the partners of other relationships. Does attachment influence the satisfaction and duration of relationships?

Satisfaction

Several studies have linked attachment styles to relationship satisfaction. People who have secure attachment styles usually express greater satisfaction with their relationships than people who have other attachment styles. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

Although the link between attachment styles and marital satisfaction has been firmly established, the mechanisms by which attachment styles influence marital satisfaction remain poorly understood. One mechanism may be communication. Secure attachment styles may lead to more constructive communication and more intimate self-disclosures, which in turn increase relationship satisfaction. [34] [42] Other mechanisms by which attachment styles may influence relationship satisfaction include emotional expressiveness, [43] [44] strategies for coping with conflict, [38] and perceived support from partners. [39] [45] Further studies are needed to better understand how attachment styles influence relationship satisfaction.

Duration

Some studies suggest people with secure attachment styles have longer-lasting relationships. [46] [47] This may be partly due to commitment. People with secure attachment styles tend to express more commitment to their relationships. People with secure attachment styles also tend to be more satisfied with their relationships, which may encourage them to stay in their relationships longer. However, secure attachment styles are by no means a guarantee of long-lasting relationships.

Nor are secure attachment styles the only attachment styles associated with stable relationships. People with anxious-preoccupied attachment styles often find themselves in long-lasting, but unhappy, relationships. [48] [49] Anxious-preoccupied attachment styles

often involve anxiety about being abandoned and doubts about one's worth as a relationship partner. These kinds of feelings and thoughts may lead people to stay in unhappy relationships.

Relationship dynamics

Attachment plays a role in the way partners interact with one another. A few examples include the role of attachment in affect regulation, support, intimacy, and jealousy. These examples are briefly discussed below. Attachment also plays a role in many interactions not discussed in this article, such as conflict, communication, and sexuality. [50] [51] [52]

Affect regulation

Bowlby has observed that certain kinds of events trigger anxiety in children, and that children try to relieve their anxiety by seeking closeness and comfort from caregivers. [53] Three main sets of conditions trigger anxiety in children:

Conditions of the child (fatigue, hunger, illness, pain, cold, etc.) Conditions involving the caregiver (caregiver absent, caregiver departing, caregiver

discouraging of proximity, caregiver giving attention to another child, etc.) Conditions of the environment (alarming events, criticism or rejection by others)

The anxiety triggered by these conditions motivates children to engage in behaviors that bring them physically closer to caregivers. A similar dynamic occurs in adults. Conditions involving personal well-being, conditions involving a relationship partner, and conditions involving the environment can trigger anxiety in adults. Adults try to alleviate their anxiety by seeking physical and psychological closeness to their partners.

Mikulincer, Shaver and Pereg have developed a model for this dynamic. [54] According to the model, when people experience anxiety, they try to reduce their anxiety by seeking closeness with relationship partners. However, the partners may accept or reject requests for greater closeness. This leads people to adopt different strategies for reducing anxiety. People engage in three main strategies to reduce anxiety.

The first strategy is called the security based strategy. The diagram below shows the sequence of events in the security based strategy.

A person perceives something that provokes anxiety. The person tries to reduce the anxiety by seeking physical or psychological closeness to her or his partner. The partner responds positively to the request for closeness, which reaffirms a sense of security and reduces anxiety. The person returns to her or his everyday activities.

The second strategy is called the attachment avoidance strategy. The following diagram shows the sequence of events in the attachment avoidance strategy.

The events begin the same way as the security based strategy. A person perceives something that triggers anxiety, and the person tries to reduce anxiety by seeking physical or psychological closeness to her or his partner. But the partner is either unavailable or rebuffs the request for closeness. The lack of responsiveness fuels insecurity and heightens anxiety. The person gives up on getting a positive response from the partner, suppresses her or his anxiety, and distances herself or himself from the partner.

The third strategy is called the hyperactivation strategy. The diagram below shows the sequence of events in the hyperactivation strategy.

The events begin the same way. Something provokes anxiety in a person, who then tries to reduce anxiety by seeking physical or psychological closeness to a partner. The partner rebuffs the request for greater closeness. The lack of responsiveness increases feelings of insecurity and anxiety. The person then gets locked into a cycle with the partner: the person tries to get closer, the partner rejects the request for greater closesness, which leads the person to try even harder to get closer, followed by another rejection from the partner, and so on. The cycle ends only when the person shifts to a security based strategy (because the partner finally responds positively) or to an attachment avoidant strategy (because the person gives up on getting a positive response from the partner).

Mikulincer, Shaver, and Pereg contend these strategies of regulating attachment anxiety have very different consequences. [54] The security based strategy leads to more positive thoughts, such as more positive explanations of why others behave in a particular way and more positive memories about people and events. More positive thoughts can

encourage more creative responses to difficult problems or distressing situations. The attachment avoidance and hyperactivation strategies lead to more negative thoughts and less creativity in handling problems and stressful situations. From this perspective, it would benefit people to adopt security based strategies for dealing with anxiety.

Support

People feel less anxious when close to their partners because their partners can provide support during difficult situations. Support includes the comfort, assistance, and information people receive from their partners.

Attachment influences both the perception of support from others and the tendency to seek support from others. People with secure attachment styles seek more support and get more support from their relationship partners, while people with other attachment styles seek less support and get less support from their relationships partners. [55] [56] [57] [58] People with secure attachment styles may trust their partners to provide support because their partners have reliably offered support in the past. They may be more likely to ask for support when it's needed. People with insecure attachment styles often do not have a history of supportive responses from their partners. They may rely less on their partners and be less likely to ask for support when it's needed. Keep in mind, however, that attachment is only one of many factors that influence how people perceive support and whether or not they choose to seek support.

Changes in the way people perceive attachment tend to occur with changes in the way people perceive support. One study looked at college students' perceptions of attachment to their mothers, fathers, same-sex friends, and opposite-sex friends. [59] When students reported changes in attachment for a particular relationship, they usually reported changes in support for that relationship as well. Changes in attachment for one relationship did not affect the perception of support in other relationships. The link between changes in attachment and changes in support was relationship-specific.

Intimacy

Attachment theory has always recognized the importance of intimacy. Bowlby writes:

"Attachment theory regards the propensity to make intimate emotional bonds to particular individuals as a basic component of human nature, already present in germinal form in the neonate and continuing through adult life into old age." (Bowlby, 1988, pages 120–121) [60]

The desire for intimacy has biological roots and, in the great majority of people, persists from birth until death. The desire for intimacy also has important implications for attachment. Relationships that frequently satisfy the desire for intimacy lead to more secure attachments between partners. Relationships that rarely satisfy the desire for intimacy lead to less secure attachments between partners.

Collins and Freeney have examined the relationship between attachment and intimacy in detail. [61] They define intimacy as a special set of interactions in which a person discloses something important about himself or herself, and a partner responds to the disclosure in a way that makes the person feel validated, understood, and cared for. These interactions usually involve verbal self-disclosure. But intimate interactions can also involve non-verbal forms of self-expression such as touching, hugging, kissing, and sexual behavior. From this perspective, intimacy requires the following:

willingness to disclose one's true thoughts, feelings, wishes, and fears willingness to rely on a partner for care and emotional support willingness to engage in physical intimacy

Collins and Freeney review a number of studies showing how each attachment style relates to the willingness to self-disclose, the willingness to rely on partners, and the willingness to engage in physical intimacy. The secure attachment style is generally related to more self-disclosure, more reliance on partners, and more physical intimacy than other attachment styles. However, the amount of intimacy in a relationship can vary due to personality variables and situational circumstances, so each attachment style may function to adapt an individual to the particular context of intimacy in which they live.

Mashek and Sherman report some interesting findings on the desire for less closeness with partners. [62] Sometimes too much intimacy can be suffocating. People in this situation desire less closeness with their partners. On the one hand, the relationship between attachment styles and desire for less closeness is predictable. People who have fearful-avoidant and anxious-preoccupied attachment styles typically want greater closeness with their partners. People who have dismissive-avoidant attachment styles typically want less closeness with their partners. On the other hand, the relatively large numbers of people who admit to wanting less closeness with their partners (up to 57% in some studies) far outnumbers the people who have dismissive-avoidant attachment styles. This suggests people who have secure, anxious-preoccupied, or fearful-avoidant attachment styles sometimes seek less closeness with their partners. The desire for less closeness is not determined by attachment styles alone.

Jealousy

Jealousy refers to the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that occur when a person believes a valued relationship is threatened by a rival. A jealous person experiences anxiety about maintaining support, intimacy, and other valued qualities of her or his relationship. Given that attachment relates to anxiety regulation, support, and intimacy, as discussed above, it is not surprising that attachment also relates to jealousy.

Bowlby observed that attachment behaviors in children can be triggered by the presence of a rival:

"In most young children the mere sight of mother holding another baby in her arms is enough to elicit strong attachment behaviour. The older child insists on remaining close to his mother, or on climbing on to her lap. Often he behaves as though he were a baby. It is possible that this well-

known behaviour is only a special case of a child reacting to mother's lack of attention and lack of responsiveness to him. The fact, however, that an older child often reacts in this way even when his mother makes a point of being attentive and responsive suggests that more is involved; and the pioneer experiments of Levy (1937) also indicate that the mere presence of a baby on mother's lap is sufficient to make an older child much more clinging." (Bowlby, 1969/1982, page 260) [53]

When children see a rival contending for a caregiver's attention, the children try to get close to the caregiver and capture the caregiver's attention. Attempts to get close to the caregiver and capture the caregiver's attention indicate the attachment system has been activated. But the presence of a rival also provokes jealousy in children. The jealousy provoked by a sibling rival has been described in detail. [63] Recent studies have shown that a rival can provoke jealousy at very young ages. The presence of a rival can provoke jealousy in infants as young as six months old. [64] [65] [66] Attachment and jealousy can both be triggered in children by the presence of a rival.

Attachment and jealousy can be triggered by the same perceptual cues in adults, too. [67] The absence of a partner can trigger both attachment and jealousy when people believe the partner is spending time with a rival. The presence of a rival can also trigger attachment and jealousy.

Differences in attachment styles influence both the frequency and the pattern of jealous expressions. People who have anxious-preoccupied or fearful-avoidant attachment styles experience jealousy more often and view rivals as more threatening than people who have secure attachment styles. [67] [68] [69] [70] People with different attachment styles also express jealousy in different ways. One study found that:

"Securely attached participants felt anger more intensely than other emotions and were relatively more likely than other participants to express it, especially toward their partner. And although anxious participants felt anger relatively intensely, and were as likely as others to express it through irritability, they were relatively unlikely to actually confront their partner. This might be attributable to feelings of inferiority and fear, which were especially characteristic of the anxiously attached and which might be expected to inhibit direct expressions of anger. Avoidants felt sadness relatively more intensely than did secures in both studies. Further, avoidants were relatively more likely than others to work to maintain their self-esteem and, perhaps as a consequence, relatively unlikely to be brought closer to their partner." (Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997, page 637) [67]

A subsequent study has confirmed that people with different attachment styles experience and express jealousy in qualitatively different ways. [69] Attachment thus plays an important role in jealous interactions by influencing the frequency and the manner in which partners express jealousy.

Adult Treatment Based on Attachment Theory

There are several attachment-based treatment approaches that can be used with adults.[71] In addition, there is an approach to treating couples based on attachment theory. [72]

1. ̂ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

2. ̂ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270-280.

3. ̂ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.

4. ̂ Fraley, R.C. & Shaver, P.R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132-154.

5. ̂ Rholes, W.S. & Simpson, J.A. (2004). Attachment theory: Basic concepts and contemporary questions. In W.S. Rholes and J.A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Implications, pp. 3-14. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

6. ̂ Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.

7. ̂ Pietromonaco, P.R. & Barrett, L.F. (1997). Working Models of Attachment and Daily Social Interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1409-1423.

8. ̂ Bowlby, J. (1973). Separation: Anxiety & Anger, Volume 2 of Attachment and loss London: Hogarth Press; New York: Basic Books; Harmondsworth: Penguin (1975).

9. ̂ Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.

10. ^ a b Baldwin, M.W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461-484.

11. ̂ Baldwin, M.W. (1997). Relational schemas as a source of if-then self-inference procedures. Review of General Psychology, 1, 326-335.

12. ̂ Baldwin, M.W., Fehr, B., Keedian, E., Seidel, M., & Thompson, D.W. (1993). An exploration of the relational schemata underlying attachment styles: self-report and lexical decision approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 746-754.

13. ^ a b Baldwin, M.W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the Instability of Attachment Style Ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247- 261.

14. ^ a b Baldwin, M.W., Keelan, J.P.R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 94-109.

15. ̂ Baldwin, M.W., & Meunier, J. (1999). The Cued Activation of Attachment Relational Schemas. Social Cognition, 17, 209-227.

16. ̂ Bowlby, J. (1980) Loss: Sadness & Depression, in Vol. 3 of Attachment and loss, London: Hogarth Press. New York: Basic Books; Harmondsworth: Penguin (1981).

17. ̂ Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209).

18. ̂ Bretherton, I. (1990). Open communication and internal working models: Their role in the development of attachment relationships. In R. A. Thompson (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 36, 57-113. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

19. ̂ Collins, N., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of attachment: The structure and function of working models. In D. Perlman & K. Bartholomew (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 53-90). London: Jessica Kingsley.

20. ̂ Main, M., Kaplan, K., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209).

21. ̂ Pietromonaco, P.R., & Barrett, L.F. (2000). The internal working models concept: What do we really know about the self in relation to others? Review of General Psychology, 4, 155-175.

22. ̂ Trinke, S.J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603-625.

23. ̂ La Guardia, J.G., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367-384.

24. ̂ Overall, N.C., Fletcher, G.J.O., & Friesen, M.D. (2003). Mapping the intimate relationship mind: Comparisons between three models of attachment representations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1479-1493.

25. ^ a b Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71, 684-689.

26. ̂ Kirkpatrick, L., & Hazen, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123-142.

27. ̂ Feeney, J., & Noller, P. (1992). Attachment style and romantic love: Relationship dissolution. Australian Journal of Psychology, 44, 69-74.

28. ̂ Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment patterns. Personal Relationships, 1, 23-43.

29. ̂ Waters, E., Weinfield, N.S., & Hamilton, C.E. (2000). The stability of attachment styles from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General discussion. Child Development, 71, 703-706.

30. ̂ Hamilton, C.E. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy through adolescence. Child Development, 71, 690-694.

31. ̂ Weinfield, N.S., Sroufe, L.A., & Egelund, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Child Development, 71, 695-702.

32. ̂ Davila, J., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Attachment change processes in the early years of marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 783-802.

33. ̂ Brennan, K.A., & Shaver, P.R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267–283.

34. ^ a b Feeney, J.A. (1994). Attachment style, communication patterns and satisfaction across the life cycle of marriage. Personal Relationships, 1, 333–348.

35. ̂ Feeney, J. A. (1996). Attachment, caregiving, and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 3, 401–416.

36. ̂ Feeney, J.A., Noller, P., & Callan, V.J. (1994). Attachment style, communication and satisfaction in the early years of marriage. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Attachment processes in adulthood (Vol. 5, pp. 269–308). London: Jessica Kingsley.

37. ̂ Fuller, T.L., & Fincham, F.D. (1995). Attachment style in married couples: Relation to current marital functioning, stability over time, and method of assessment. Personal Relationships, 2, 17–34.

38. ^ a b Lussier, Y., Sabourin, S., & Turgeon, C. (1997). Coping strategies as moderators of the relationship between attachment and marital adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 777–791.

39. ^ a b Meyers, S.A., & Landsberger, S.A. (2002). Direct and indirect pathways between adult attachment style and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 9, 159–172.

40. ̂ Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.

41. ̂ Senchak, M., & Leonard, K.E. (1992). Attachment styles and marital adjustment among newlywed couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 51-64.

42. ̂ Keelan, J.P.R., Dion, K.K., & Dion, K.L. (1998). Attachment style and relationship satisfaction: Test of a self-disclosure explanation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 30, 24–35.

43. ̂ Feeney, J.A. (1999). Adult attachment, emotional control, and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 6, 169–185.

44. ̂ Davila, J., Bradbury, T.N., & Fincham, F. (1998). Negative affectivity as a mediator of the association between adult attachment and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 5, 467-484.

45. ̂ Cobb, R.J., Davila, J., & Bradbury, T.N. (2001). Attachment security and marital satisfaction: The role of positive perceptions and social support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1131-1143.

46. ̂ Simpson, J.A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971-980.

47. ̂ Duemmler, S.L., & Kobak, R. (2001). The development of commitment and attachment in dating relationships: attachment security as relationship construct. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 401-415.

48. ̂ Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Davis, K.E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 502-512.

49. ̂ Davila, J., & Bradbury, T.N. (2001). Attachment insecurity and the distinction between unhappy spouses who do and do not divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 371-393.

50. ̂ Rholes, W.S., Simpson, J.A., & Stevens, J.G. (1998). Attachment orientations, social support, and conflict resolution in close relationships. In W.S. Rholes & J.A. Simpson (Eds.), Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (pp.166-188). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

51. ̂ Anders, S.L., & Tucker, J.S. (2000). Adult attachment style, interpersonal communication competence, and social support. Personal Relationships, 7, 379-389.

52. ̂ Feeney, J.A. & Noller, P. (2004). Attachment and sexuality in close relationships. In J.H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, and S. Sprecher (Eds.), The Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships. (pp. 183-201) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

53. ^ a b Bowlby, J. (1969/1982) Attachment, Vol. 1 of Attachment and loss. London: Hogarth Press. New York: Basic Books (1982).

54. ^ a b Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P.R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77-102.

55. ̂ Kobak, R.R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146.

56. ̂ Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies, and post-traumatic psychological distress: The impact of the Gulf War in Israel. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 817-826.

57. ̂ Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W.S., & Nelligan, J.S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety provoking situation: The role of attachment styles". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434-446.

58. ̂ Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Bucholtz, I. (1995). Effects of adult attachment style on the perception and search for social support. Journal of Psychology, 129, 665-676.

59. ̂ Asendorpf, J.B., & Wilpers, S. (2000). Attachment security and available support: Closely linked relationship qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 115-138.

60. ̂ Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.

61. ̂ Collins, N.L. & Freeney, B.C. (2004). An Attachment Theory Perspective on Closeness and Intimacy. In D.J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy, pp. 163-188. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

62. ̂ Mashek, D.J., & Sherman, M.D. (2004). Desiring less closeness with initimate others. In A. Aron and Mashek, D.J. (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy (pp. 343-356). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

63. ̂ Volling, B.L., McElwain, N.L., & Miller, A.L. (2002). Emotion regulation in context: The jealousy complex between young siblings and its relations with child and family characteristics. Child Development, 73, 581-600.

64. ̂ Hart, S. (2002). Jealousy in 6-month-old infants. Infancy, 3, 395-402. 65. ̂ Hart, S. (2004). When infants lose exclusive maternal attention: Is it jealousy? Infancy,

6, 57-78. 66. ̂ Harris, C.R. (2004). The evolution of jealousy. American Scientist, 92, 62-71. 67. ^ a b c Sharpsteen, D.J., & Kirkpatrick, L.A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic

attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 627-640. 68. ̂ Buunk, B.P. (1997).Personality, birth order and attachment styles as related to various

types of jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 997-1006. 69. ^ a b Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience and

expression of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5, 273-291. 70. ̂ Radecki-Bush, C., Farrell, A.D., & Bush, J.I. (1993). Predicting jealous responses: The

influence of adult attachment and depression on threat appraisal. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 569-588.

71. ̂ Sable, P., (2000). Attachment & Adult Psychotherapy. Northvale NJ: Aaronson. 72. ̂ Johnson, S., (2002). Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy with Trauma Survivors.

NY: Guilford.

Andersson, P. (2006) Determinants of Individual Vulnerability to Heroin Addiction – A Psychosocial Study. The Doctoral thesis, Åbo Akademi University. ISBN 952-12-1677-8.

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P., (Eds). (1999) Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. Guilford Press, NY.

Greenberg, MT, Cicchetti, D., & Cummings, EM., (Eds) (1990) Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research and Intervention University of Chicago, Chicago.

Greenspan, S. (1993) Infancy and Early Childhood. Madison, CT: International Universities Press. ISBN 0-8236-2633-4.

Holmes, J. (1993) John Bowlby and Attachment Theory. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-07730-3.

Holmes, J. (2001) The Search for the Secure Base: Attachment Theory and Psychotherapy. London: Brunner-Routledge. ISBN 1-58391-152-9.

Karen R (1998) Becoming Attached: First Relationships and How They Shape Our Capacity to Love. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-511501-5.

Parkes, CM, Stevenson-Hinde, J., Marris, P., (Eds.) (1991) Attachment Across The Life Cycle Routledge. NY. ISBN 0-415-05651-9

Siegler R., DeLoache, J. & Eisenberg, N. (2003) How Children develop. New York: Worth. ISBN 1-57259-249-4.

Confusing, frightening and isolating emotional experiences early in life create insecure attachment and can result in severe attachment disorders. Attachment disorders

can limit a child’s  ability to be emotionally present, flexible and able to communicate in ways that build satisfying and meaningful relationships.

What kinds of experiences create insecure attachments? What kinds of experiences bring about healing change? Learn about the symptoms, causes and repair of attachment disorders and reactive attachment disorder.

Insecure attachment and attachment disorders

If secure attachment doesn’t occur with sufficient regularity in infancy and early childhood, (about one third of the time) a child won’t have the experiences they need to grow up feeling confidence in themselves and trust in others. Instead, insecure attachments will form that may lead to attachment disorders. These disorders may be reflected in learning problems, social problems, mental problems and failed personal and interpersonal relationships.

The purpose of labeling a parent child relationship “insecure” is not to blame  parents who love and intend the best for their children, but may be products themselves of insecure attachment, trauma or depression.  Separation can also be a factor that contributes to insecure attachment. Insecure attachment and the developmental disruptions they can cause are often passed from one generation to the next unless steps are taken to repair what has been damaged.

Avoidant attachment

When a parent is emotionally unavailable or rejecting, a child may become “avoidantly” attached, meaning that the child adapts by avoiding closeness and emotional connection. This child may appear to be very independent but their self reliance is a cover for insecurity.

Ambivalent attachment

An “ambivalently” attached child experiences the parents’ communication as inconsistent and at times intrusive. Because the child can’t depend on the parent for attunement and connection, he develops a sense of anxiety and feelings of insecurity.

Disorganized attachment

When the child’s’ need for emotional closeness remains unseen or ignored, and the parents behavior is a source of disorientation or terror. When children have experiences with parents that leave them overwhelmed, traumatized, and frightened, they become disorganized and chaotic.

Causes of Attachment Disorders

Socio-economic status has nothing to do with the ability to establish successful attachment relationships. Children who have had a succession of nannies, or orphaned children who spend their early years in orphanages or move from foster home to foster home, are at risk for severe attachment disruption. It also can occur as a result of severe illness in the parent or the child, parental unavailability, or emotional trauma. Some children have inborn disabilities or temperaments that make it difficult for them to form a secure attachment, no matter how hard the parent tries. In any case, there generally are several factors involved. The major causes of attachment disorders are:

neglect, including emotional neglect abuse, physical or sexual separation from primary caregiver changes in primary caregiver traumatic experiences such as death of parent or disaster maternal depression maternal use of drugs or alcohol undiagnosed, isolating painful illness such as colic or ear infections

Signs and symptoms of attachment disorders

Insecure attachments influence the developing brain, which in turn affects future interactions with others, self-esteem, self-control, and the ability to learn and to achieve optimum mental and physical health. Because attachment affects all aspects of development, symptoms of insecure attachment may mirror – and be partly responsible for – common developmental problems including ADHD and spectrum autism.

Symptoms of insecure attachment Emotional Problems

low self-esteem; needy, clingy or pseudo-independent behavior; inability to deal with stress and adversity; depression; apathy

Physical problems

susceptibility to chronic illness; obsession with food - hordes, gorges, refuses to eat, eats strange things, hides food

Social Problems

lack of self-control; inability to develop and maintain friendships; alienation from parents, caregivers, and other authority figures; aggression and violence; difficulty with genuine trust, intimacy, and affection; lack of empathy, compassion and remorse; negative, hopeless, pessimistic view of self, family and society

Learning problems

behavioral problems at school; speech and language problems; incessant chatter and questions; difficulty learning

Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD)

Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) is a clinically recognized form of severe insecure attachment. Children with RAD are so neurologically disrupted that they cannot attach to a primary caregiver or go through the normal developmental processes. These children cannot establish positive relationships with other people. Many of these children may

have been incorrectly diagnosed as having severe emotional and behavioral disturbances ranging from bipolar disorder to depression. In response to these diagnoses, they may have received various combinations of unnecessary psychotropic mediation.

Reactive attachment disorder (RAD) can be especially challenging for parents, because children with RAD may have no interest in pleasing their parents – they do not reward parents with the cues of pleasure, appreciation and affection that motivate parental investment in children. In fact, a complete stranger may elicit the exact same response from a child with RAD as does a loving and protecting parent.

Families who have children with Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) will benefit from treatment and therapeutic parenting. In time and with patience, even severe attachment disorders can be repaired.

Repairing attachment disorders

How is inadequate attachment repaired? Recent studies show that it’s never too late to create positive change in a child’s life, or in an adult’s, for that matter. The learning that accompanies new experiences can alter neural connections in the brain. Relationships with relatives, teachers and childcare providers can supply an important source of connection and strength for the child’s developing mind. In attempts to repair attachment, here are some things to consider:

Attachment is an interactive process.

It is an evolutionary fact that our brains are structured to connect to one another. The attachment process alters the brains of both parent and child. But what makes attachment so unique is that the stronger, older, more experienced parent attunes and follows the lead of the younger, less experienced, more vulnerable child. However, following an infant’s lead does not mean that that the infant makes all the decisions.  It does mean that the caretaker follows and responds to the infant’s emotional needs and defers to the infants emotional needs when appropriate.

Attachment is a nonverbal process.

Attachment takes place many months and even years before speech and thought develop. Communication is accomplished through wordless means that rely on several things to convey interest, understanding and caring:

Visual – eye contact; facial expression; posture ; gesture body movement Auditory –  tone of voice; speech rhythm and rate; timing, intensity and voice

modulation

Children vary in what they find soothing

There is no “one size fits all” for every child. In determining what constitutes “just right” communication for a particular child, it will be up to the adult to follow the nonverbal cues of that child. What soothes a parent may not soothe an infant. Thus, parents may have to explore the best techniques for soothing their child and themselves in order to make connection with the child.

Attachment can’t begin until both parties feel safe in their bodies and safe with one another.

Attachment is akin to falling in love, but unless both adult and child feel completely safe, it will not be successful. When adults are anxious, mad, tuned out or overwhelmed, they will not be able to make an attuned connection with a child. If a child is overwhelmed or inconsolable, he may not be available for an attuned emotional connection. Sensory activities such as rocking, singing, moving, touching, and feeding can sooth children, but remember that youngsters vary in their sensory preferences.

Shared emotional experiences should be truly shared.

The key to shared emotional experience with your child is to feel the experience to some degree in your own body. This process of shared experience helps both infants and children regulate their feeling states. It is usually more important to share a negative state with a child than to problem solve. Sharing enables children to learn to problem solve for themselves.

Positive emotional experiences are as important to share as negative

The shared positive emotional experiences of joy are as important to the attachment bond as the shared negative emotional experiences of fear, sadness, anger and shame.

Some parents are very good at detecting a child’s distress and responding appropriately to it. Other parents share joyous moments but leave or space out in times of trouble and unhappiness. A strong attachment bond includes the full range of shared emotional experience—including joy.

Conflict and repair is a crucial part of secure attachment.

No matter how much we love our children, there comes a point where we are not in agreement with them, a point when we have to set limits, and say “no.” This conflict temporally ruptures the relationship as the child angrily protests. Such protest is to be expected. The key to strengthening the attachment bond of trust is to be available the minute the child is ready to reconnect. It is also important to initiate repair when we have done something to hurt, disrespect, or shame a child. Parents aren’t perfect. From time to

time, we are the cause of the disconnection. Again, our willingness to initiate repair can strengthen the attachment bond.

To learn about the repair of adult relationships based on a model of secure attachment, see Helpguide’s Relationship Help series, which describes and details the skills needed to create secure attachments.

Bonding

Our first relationship -- the attachment bond --   establishes the core strengths on which we form our relationships, sense of security, resilience to stress and emotional flexibility. The brain at birth is programmed to connect us to one very significant person. How we relate to that special someone will profoundly influence every part of growth-- physical, mental, emotional and intellectual. Learn about the skills that contribute to creating a secure parent-child bond

Parenting, the brain, and attachment

Why has the attachment bond become a cornerstone for parenting? According to the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, the attachment relationship is the primary predictor of how well a child will do in school. This relationship also predicts all other aspects of health and well being in a developing child. 

Why has one relationship taken on such importance in recent years? The short answer is that brain technology and research has made greater strides in the past fifteen years than in all preceding years.  For the first time we can view the living brain – the “control center” for the nervous system and everything that takes place in the body. Newfound technology has led to discoveries that overturned many former assumptions about the brain and made us aware that:

The brain at birth is the least completed organ in the body – and remains so for from three to five years 

The brain is capable growth throughout life –adding new cells as well as new connections to other cells.

Brain development is determined by experience before and after birth – genetic factors are no more influential than experience. 

The brain seeks relationships –throughout life, and especially in infancy, relationships grab and hold the attention of the brain.

The most profound experiences in infancy occur in relationship with one primary caretaker – beginning in the last trimester of pregnancy and lasting for at least two-and-a-half to three years of age.

Parenting and secure attachment

What makes the attachment bond secure or insecure? In order to have a secure base from which to explore the world, be resilient to stress, and form meaningful relationships with themselves and others, all infants need a primary adult who cares for them in sensitive ways and who perceives, makes sense of and responds to their needs. Attachment is an instinctive system in the brain that evolved to ensure infant safety and survival. Primary caretakers are usually the natural mothers, but they need not be. A father, another relative or a non-relative can function in the role of primary caretaker, provided they sustain a central role in a child’s life for at least the first three (and preferably the first five) years – the period when a child’s brain develops most rapidly.

Each attachment occurs in a unique way. Infants vary in what it takes to calm and soothe them or what they find most pleasurable. Caretakers also have their own preferences, but the attuned caretaker will observe and follow the lead of the infant.

Relationships characterized by secure attachment have the following attributes:

The adult aligns his/her own internal state with that of the infant or child and communicates this alignment in non-verbal ways that the child understands. This “communication” forms a bond of trust that makes the infant feel that he/she is felt, known and respected. For example:

The child cries; the adult feels concern and acts in ways that communicate this concern.

The infant smiles and wants to interact in a positive manner. Seeing this, the adult understands and accommodates the infant’s desire for joyful play.

Through this mutually attuned interaction, the infant learns to attain balance in his body, emotions, and states of mind.

The comfort, pleasure, and mutuality of the attuned interaction create a sense of safety within the infant and inspire interpersonal connection to others

“Attachment parenting” and relationship bonding

Attachment parenting is a set of infant centered practices that have been used by parents for many years to promote optimal growth and development. Understanding and practice of the attachment bond   was introduced by new brain scan technologies and world wide video studies that caught and analyzed the relationship between mother and infant based on the subtle nuances of emotionally attuned and mis-attuned relationships.

Attachment Parenting vs. “parenting to create a secure attachment bond’

"Attachment Parenting” is a name coined by pediatrician Dr. William Sears for his theory of parenting practices intended to foster emotionally secure attachment in infants. Dr Sears and Attachment Parenting International promote 8 principles that focus on ways of attending to needs for “proximity, protecting and predictability.”  Many of these practices such as breast feeding, holding, and touching have been recommended for nearly 60 years.

Parenting that intends to create a secure relationship bond based on revelations only recently made visible will focus less on principles and more on emotional communication. This will be the case because even mothers who love and care for their children can fail to provide their offspring with good attachment experience if they don’t play with them, don’t emotionally communicate with them, or frequently misread, misunderstand, or ignore their baby’s cues.

The ability to manage stress and remain emotionally present from moment to moment enables a mother to fall in love with her infant and create a secure attachment bond. A caretaker who is depressed, traumatized overwhelmed or distracted won’t be able to connect emotionally with her infant.

Attachment bonding and parenting styles predict the future

Previously, we could only speculate as to why important relationships disappeared, disintegrated or became contentious. But thanks to new insights into brain development, we can understand why what first brings us together may not be enough to keep us together.

Human beings are highly social creatures. Our brains are designed to be in relationship with other people. Interactive communication shapes both the structure and function of the brain. The technology that brain scans have made available in the past fifteen years proves this point. Attachment experience directly influences the development of children and is directly responsible for activating or not activating their genetic potential. Interpersonal relationships and the patterns of communications that children experience with their caretakers directly influence the development of their mental processes.

Secure attachment establishes the basis on which the child will form relationships with others; his sense of security about exploring the world; his resilience to stress; his ability to balance his emotions, make sense of his life, and create meaningful interpersonal relationships in the future.

Parenting need not be perfect for secure attachment

Parents don’t have to be perfect to create secure attachment in their children. Attachment is not “destiny”, because the brain remains flexible throughout life. Relationships with parents can, and do, change. If communication with the infant is secure at least a third of the time or more, that is enough to support a secure relationship.

Repair, an important part of the attachment process, contributes as much to optimum development as joyous interaction. No caretaker will interpret a child’s needs correctly all the time. And, as the child grows, there will be times of disagreement between the pair. The caretaker that sets limits and initiates repair as soon as the child indicates a desire for reconnection, strengthens the child’s feeling of safety within the relationship.

For example, Mom says, “you can’t play with fire” or “you must brush your teeth before bed.” Infants and toddlers, unable to see things from an adult perspective, are easily put off by requests they dislike, which temporarily severs the relationship with anger and tears. The attuned caretaker is not intimidated or put off by this disruption in closeness. If the child is angry or pouting, the caretaker understands the child’s feelings, but remains firm. Relatively soon, the dependant party (the child) gives up because they need to reconnect. An attuned caretaker will respond positively and immediately.

Parenting skills that promote secure attachment

Observation of secure parenting relationships demonstrate a skill set that may also be equated with emotional intelligence. Helpguide has created a series of articles based on secure attachment practices for use in building and repairing adult relationships. This skill set, which also applies to the building of secure parent/child relationships, includes:

managing stress emotion communicates nonverbal communication playful communication conflict resolution and in particular, the quick course for raising emotional intelligence

Affectional bond Maternal deprivation Family therapy Human bonding Object relations

theory Primal integration

Reactive attachment disorder

Attachment parenting Attachment in adults Attachment in children Attachment measures Attachment disorder Reactive attachment

disorder Attachment therapy

Emotionally Focused Therapy

Jean Piaget Jerome Kagan John Bowlby Mary Ainsworth Melanie Klein Professor Sir

Michael Rutter Rene Spitz

Harry Harlow