Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
• 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 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.
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]
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.
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 disorder
Main 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.
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.
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]
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]
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.
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.
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]
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 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:
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.
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:
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:
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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
Ambivalent 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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
• 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” 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.
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.
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.
• managing stress
• emotion communicates
• nonverbal communication
• playful communication
• conflict resolution
• and in particular, the quick course for raising emotional intelligence