Family of Origin, Attachment, and Genogram AFT PDF

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254360550
Family of Origin Theory,

Attachment Theory and the
Genogram
Article in Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy · December 2004

DOI: 10.1300/J398v03n04_03
CITATIONS READS
0 1,757
1 author:
Martin Rovers
Saint Paul University
8 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Martin Rovers

Retrieved on: 03 September 2016
This article was downloaded by: [University of Ottawa]
On: 08 January 2015, At: 09:50
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Journal of Couple &

Relationship Therapy:
Innovations in Clinical and
Educational Interventions
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcrt20

Attachment Theory and the
Genogram
a
Martin Rovers PhD
a
Faculty of Human Sciences of Saint Paul
University , 223 Main Street, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada , KIS IC4
Published online: 03 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Martin Rovers PhD (2004) Family of Origin Theory, Attachment
Theory and the Genogram, Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy: Innovations in
Clinical and Educational Interventions, 3:4, 43-63, DOI: 10.1300/J398v03n04_03
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J398v03n04_03
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015
Attachment Theory and the Genogram:
Developing a New Assessment Paradigm

for Couple Therapy
Martin Rovers
ABSTRACT. Although family of origin theory and attachment theory

have their own distinctive conceptual frameworks, this paper argues that
both theories can also be understood as different perspectives on the same
human experience, the development of attachment and relationship pat-
terns within the womb of the family. Both theories have developed a
continuum of attachment patterns. This paper attempts to bridge corre-
sponding attachment patterns and structures a new paradigm for attach-
ment. The genogram is suggested as a more simplified and useful assess-
ment map of attachment patterns. Finally, the paper offers a case study
exploring the implications for couple therapy. [Article copies available for
a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail
address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.
com> © 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Family of origin, attachment, differentiation, secure base,

couple assessment
Martin Rovers, PhD, is a Psychologist, an AAMFT Clinical Member and Approved

Supervisor, and Professor in the Faculty of Human Sciences of Saint Paul University,
223 Main Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, KIS IC4. He has a private practice in mar-
riage and family therapy and is a therapist at the Ottawa Couple and Family Institute
(E-mail: mrovers@ ustpaul.uottawa.ca).
Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, Vol. 3(4) 2004
http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JCRT
 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J398v03n04_03 43
44 JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
To understand attachment, one must begin to fathom how each per-

son is inextricably interwoven within broader interactional systems, the
most fundamental of which is the family. Bowen (1978) highlighted the
emotional atmosphere of the family system, including interpersonal re-
lationship patterns ranging from differentiation to fusion/emotional cut-

off. Williamson (1991) refined Bowen’s concept of differentiation and
addressed the paradoxical issue of leaving home while choosing to be-
long within the family. Although Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980, 1988), in
his work on attachment patterns, focussed mostly on children, he in-
sisted that attachment phenomena are lifelong, a “straightforward con-
tinuation” (Bowlby, 1969) of attachment in childhood. Other authors
have explored adult attachment as it plays out in romantic and parenting
relationships (Weiss, 1982; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Main, Kaplan &
Cassidy, 1985; Brennan, Clark & Shaver, 1998; Bartholomew & Horo-
witz, 1991; Fraley & Waller, 1998). Many have combined the theory of
attachment with various assessment measures. Some (Davis & Jones,
1992; Rastogi & Wampler, 1999) have brought these two theories to-
gether in research. Yet few have explored family of origin theory, con-
cepts and assessment tools as possibilities to shed further light on
attachment styles and vice versa. This paper attempts to bridge family
of origin theory and attachment theory through a common conceptual
model of attachment and suggests the genogram as a more simplified
assessment map when doing therapy with couples.
FAMILY OF ORIGIN THEORY
A family of origin can be conceptualized as the living unit in which a

person has his or her beginnings physiologically, psychically, and emo-
tionally (Hovestadt, Anderson, Piercy, Cochran & Fine, 1985). Accord-
ingly, it is within the context of one’s family of origin experiences that
one’s current self-image, values, behaviors, attitudes, and style of relat-
ing to others germinate. To varying degrees throughout one’s life, these
early experiences can continue to influence growth and development.
Murray Bowen (1976, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988) placed people
within the context of the dynamics of their family system, which is seen
as an emotional unit, constituting an interlocking network of relation-
ships. More specifically, people are viewed within the context of a
larger multigenerational system. Bowen (1976, 1978) defined one’s fam-
ily of origin experience as the emotional atmosphere of one’s family,
which includes interpersonal relationship patterns, role-related behav-
Martin Rovers 45
iour and expectations, and rules that characterize relationships within the
family in which an individual is reared. Family relational patterns result
from combined overt and covert expectations and attributions of family
members.
Family and couple relationship interactions tend to be highly recipro-

cal, patterned and repetitive. Family systems theory predicts that inter-
actional patterns are reproduced from generation to generation. As a re-
sult, Bowen hypothesized that levels of individuation and intimacy with-
in the family of origin are reproduced in current relationships with spou-
ses and significant others (Bowen, 1978). Said simply, the family is the
principal transmitter of knowledge, attitudes, roles and habits which,
through word and example, shape a person’s personality and instill modes
of thinking and ways of acting, especially attachment patterns, that be-
come habitual in life.
Everyone must continually struggle with balancing togetherness and
the capacity for intense intimacy in relationships and individuality and
the capacity for independent thinking and goal-oriented action. One of
the key concepts of Bowen’s family theory is an understanding of the
importance of “differentiation of self.” Differentiation is the process by
which a person manages individuality and togetherness in a relation-
ship. Kerr and Bowen (1988) consider differentiation of the self as the
ability to function as an individual while being a part of the group. Dif-
ferentiation permits a person to function individually, and yet be emo-
tionally involved with others, and to do both simultaneously at pro-
found depth. Said another way, differentiation permits one to be secure
in relationships.
The process of differentiation involves balancing the togetherness
and individuality forces (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 71). Exactly how this
“balancing” is expressed in theory and managed in everyday life has
been hotly debated. Williamson (1991) reworked Bowen’s concept of
differentiation of self by introducing the concept of personal authority
in the family system. He defines personal authority as a synthesizing
construct connecting individuation and intimacy. In addressing the ques-
tion, “how does the adult leave the home psychologically in a very com-
plete sense and still belong emotionally with the family of origin”
(Williamson, 1991, p. 4), he suggests that one needs to balance individ-
uation and intimacy in some sense of harmony or security. Knudson-
Martin (1994), speaking from a feminist and sociopolitical perspective,
criticized Bowen for seeming to emphasize individuality as the vehicle
for moving towards positive togetherness; “a vision of two separate in-
dividuals engaging each other, solving problems, meeting each other’s
needs, becoming intimate” (Knudson-Martin, 2002, p. 116). Knudson-

Martin (1994) developed a differentiation model wherein individuality
and togetherness are seen as separate capacities that both require devel-
opment and can lead towards differentiation. Horne and Hicks (2002) pre-
sented a ‘zipper model’ wherein togetherness and individuality are seen

more as reciprocal dimensions that come together to cooperate towards
differentiation. This paper will present another model for contemplating
differentiation of self, a model ameliorated by attachment theory.
Bowen (1978) developed a scale of differentiation primarily as a the-
oretical framework to describe the differentiation or emotional fu-
sion/separation people achieve from their families of origin. Differ-
entiation exists along a continuum ranging from poor differentiation to
high levels of differentiation. The scale of differentiation is a continuum
and arbitrary numbers of 0-100 are assigned to the scale. A high score
represents better differentiation when a person has fully resolved emo-
tional attachment to his/her family. This person is autonomous in the
sense that he/she is able to be self-determining. The differentiated per-
son has learned to balance the interplay between individuality and to-
getherness, both of which are good and necessary dimensions in life and
love. This person has attained maturity and security of self.
A lower score represents undifferentiation with her/his family. For
Bowen (1978), there are two ways to manage undifferentiation: fusion
and emotional cutoff. They are very different, indeed, opposite expres-
sions of undifferentiation and extremes in terms of relational patterns.
Fusion is defined as ways that people borrow or lend a self to another.
Fused people have never resolved or untangled the original symbiotic
relationship with mother and/or father and these people desperately
seek togetherness by being loved, accepted, or guided though life. With
this definition, fusion has been more commonly referred to as enmesh-
ment (Bograd, 1988). Bowen added emotional cutoff to his theory at a
later time to describe the way some people manage their undiffer-
entiation by immature separation or distancing from each other, “the
process of separation, isolation, withdrawal, running away, or denying”
(Bowen, 1976, p. 84) important relationships, especially parents. Cutoff
and distance mean the same thing (Kerr & Bowen, 1988). Cutoff can be
enforced through physical distance and/or through various forms of with-
drawal, but “the person who runs away from home is as emotionally at-
tached as the one who stays home and uses internal mechanisms to con-
trol the attachment” (Bowen, 1978, p. 535). Emotional cutoff can be
described as the flip side of fusion (Titelman, 1998). Relationship pat-
terns vary: “at one extreme are members who are very distant from or in
Martin Rovers 47
conflict with each other . . . at the other extreme is what is called emo-
tional fusion or stuckness” (McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985, p. 7). People
can be viewed as operating on a continuum of fusion to differentiation
to emotional cut-off (McGoldrick & Carter, 2001). Therefore, the scale
of differentiation can be reconceptualized to look a bit more like this:
Enmeshment/Fusion Differentiation Emotional Cutoff

0. . . . . . . . . . 25. . . . . . . 50 . . . 75 . . . . . 100. . . . . . . . . .75. . . .50. . . . . . 25. . . . . . . . . .0
Bowen (Kerr & Bowen, 1988) divided his scale of differentiation

into four ranges of functioning. He defined some characteristics of each
range and he called for further research to make more precise distinc-
tions between levels of differentiation. On the undifferentiated end (0-25)
of the scale, people live in a feeling world and are unable to differentiate
between thoughts and feelings. Decisions are based on what feels right
and responses can range from “automatic compliance to extreme opposi-
tional behavior” (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 101). People in the upper part
of this range need to maintain a sufficient system of dependent relation-
ships to function in life. People in the 25-50 range lack beliefs and con-
victions of their own. They are suggestible and quick to imitate others to
gain acceptance or to seek out the ideal close relationship or, at the other
end of the continuum, to be avoidant or fearful of relationship. Bowen
suggested that most people probably function within the 50-75 range.
These people can make choices and are secure enough to move back and
forth between relationships and goal-directed activity. They are well
able to balance individuation and togetherness. They have a good sense
of their own authority (Williamson, 1991). Bowen suggested that few
people function in the 75-100 range and he left the 95-100 range as an
ideal. People in the 75-95 range are principle-oriented and goal di-
rected. Secure within themselves, they can listen without reacting. They
can respect the identity of others and enjoy relationships.
Family of origin theory sets out a variety of ways or a continuum of
attachment or belonging patterns ranging from enmeshed to differenti-
ated to cutoff. These attachment patterns are learned within the womb
of the family and are seen to function throughout life. Therefore, the
foundation stones of present day attachment patterns can be discerned
and better understood by assessing family of origin experiences.
ATTACHMENT THEORY
Bowlby’s attachment theory has increased awareness of the impor-

tance of early attachment experiences on interpersonal relationships
throughout life. Bowlby described the process of intergenerational trans-

mission of attachment from parent to child. Attachment theory rests on
the concept of an attachment behavioral system, “a homeostatic process
that regulates infant proximity-seeking and contact-maintaining behav-
iors with one or a few specific individuals who provide physical or psy-
chological safety or security” (Sperling & Berman, 1994, p. 5). Attach-
ment behavior is activity that promotes closeness to one’s attachment
figure. This ‘secure base’ or at least ‘felt security’ (Scoufe & Waters,
1977) is the primary purpose for attachment behavior (Simpson & Rholes,
1998). There are common variations, patterns, or ‘working models’ to
explain the way attachment is learned. The internal working model is a
representation based upon experiences of attachment from family of or-
igin history in conjunction with current interactions between self and
significant others. For the secure attachment pattern, a delicate balance
is sought between seeking proximity to the caregiver and exploration,
between connectedness and autonomy. This is similar to Bowen’s
theory where the concept of differentiation is characterized by the “bal-
ance/ imbalance of two life forces or instincts: the force of togetherness
and the force of individuality” (Titelman, 1998, p. 14).
Differences in individual attachment behavior are grouped into two
categories: secure and anxious/insecure (Bowlby, 1973). From these,
four attachment patterns for children have been described: secure,
avoidant, and ambivalent (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978)
while preoccupied was added later (Main & Solomon, 1990). Secure
children showed the most adaptive behaviors. Secure attachment not
only provides comfort and protection as the need arises, but also enables
autonomy and the exploration of the environment. Secure children are
confident of the availability of caregivers and confident of their own in-
teractions in the world (Weinfield, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 1999).
Interdependence, that balance of intimacy and autonomy, is one good
sign of the secure bond (Johnson & Greenberg, 1992).
The patterns of insecure attachment might best be viewed as strate-
gies for coping with a difficult interpersonal world learned over the years
from infancy to adolescence to adulthood. Avoidant children are char-
acterized by the belief that when one needs care one will not be re-
sponded to helpfully. Avoidant children showed avoidance of proxi-
mity during reunion, often turning away or ignoring the parent. These
children are less likely to show affective sharing, and more likely to ap-
pear distressed (Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969). They make little effort to
maintain contact with the caregiver. Ambivalent children sought con-
tact but often in a resistant or angry fashion. They very much want con-
Martin Rovers 49
tact or proximity, but they do not seem to be calmed or secure in that con-
nection. They tend to be more passive, to be clinging and uncomfortable
in exploring the world. A disorganized pattern was recognized as a dis-
tinct pattern later (Main & Solomon, 1990) and can be defined as chil-
dren who were not consistent in any attachment strategy. All attachment
patterns are highly influenced by experiences within the family of origin.
Attachment and Couple Relationships
Bowlby’s attachment theory provides the theoretical model to ac-

count for adult love relationships which concentrates on such issues as
emotional bonds, as well as adaptive needs for protection, security, and
connectedness with significant others (Johnson, 1996; Dankoski, 2001).
Recent literature has begun to examine the relationship between attach-
ment patterns learned in childhood and adult attachment patterns in cou-
ple relationships. Important differences exist between parent-child and
couple attachments, such as the more reciprocal nature of the couple
and the role of sexuality (Weiss, 1982). However, the work of adult at-
tachment by Hazan and Shaver (1987) and Bartholomew and Horowitz
(1991) has drawn parallels with the work of Bowlby.
Hazan and Shaver (1987) used Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) attachment
patterns as descriptors for adults. They contend that romantic love can
be viewed as an attachment process and that the three major attachment
styles of childhood are manifest in romantic love. Adults who identified
themselves as secure could get closer to others and be more comfortable
being dependent upon others. They had little worry about abandonment.
Adults who saw themselves as avoidant acknowledged their discomfort
with closeness and difficulty in trusting others. These adults got ner-
vous when love came too close. Adults with an ambivalent pattern wor-
ried that their partner did not really love them and thus wanted to get
very close and hold onto their partners.
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) followed a similar pattern but
broke the avoidant pattern into two subgroups, ‘fearful’ and ‘dismiss-
ing.’ The fearful group wanted close relationships but found it difficult
to trust and were afraid of rejection. The dismissive group did not want
close relationships and wanted more of an independent, lone-ranger
stance. Both ‘fearful’ and ‘dismissive’ demonstrate similar avoidant of
intimacy behaviors. Although Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) and
Hazan and Shaver (1987) do not match up entirely, there is rough corre-
spondence between them. The ‘fearful’ group shows similarities to the
‘disorganized’ group (Howe, Brandon, Hinings & Schofield, 1999).
Attachment theory is intergenerational, especially in regard to assess-

ing and predicting adult attachment patterns based upon what these peo-
ple experienced as children. Bowlby stated that “because . . . children
tend unwittingly to identify with parents and therefore adopt, when they
become parents, the same patterns of behavior that they themselves have
experienced during their childhood, patterns of interaction are transmit-
ted more or less faithfully from one generation to the next” (1969,
p. 323).
Past attachment behaviors can be transferred to present relationships
(Main & Hesse, 1990, 1999). Turned around, present relationship pat-
terns can be better understood by uncovering experiences or ‘working
models’ of childhood and characteristics of past attachment figures, es-
pecially parents, by observing, researching and realizing ‘unfinished
business’ of childhood which still organizes present processes (Simpson &
Rholes, 1998). Clients’ current and past family climate can be quite pre-
dictive of present attachment styles (Diehl, Elnick, Bourbeau & La-
Louvie-Vief, 1998). The genogram will be introduced later as one means
to better identify current and past family climate.
FAMILY OF ORIGIN THEORY

AND ATTACHMENT THEORY:
A SYNTHESIS
To illustrate attachment patterns, Bowlby borrowed a schema from

the biologist Waddington’s theory of epigentic developmental path-
ways (Simpson & Rholes, 1998). This schema pictures a wide range of
normal development in the center of the pathways, and more dysfunc-
tional development on both extremes (see Figure 1).
In Bowlby’s theory of development, there is no single route to nor-
mality or secure-enough attachment pattern. Development is not block-
ed by particular experiences of deficits but rather re-routed or con-
strained into increasingly particular pathways over the wide range of
normal to abnormal development (Caperton-Brown, 1992). A full clas-
sification schema, suggested by Goldberg’s (1991) research, found that
attachment classifications can range from secure to marginally secure to
insecure. Even the ‘normal’ or secure range is made up of numerous
pathways, or branches, or clusters. The road to security is not a primrose
path, but a process which involves risks, choices and anxieties. This
schema conceives a continuous measure, moving away from set cate-
gorical traits of attachment patterns. In addition, this schema leaves space
for changes and healing as one experiences new attachment figures in
Martin Rovers 51
FIGURE 1. Schema of Attachment Patterns
Togetherness balancing Individuation

Secure
Differentiated
Fearful
Ambivalent/ Avoidant/
Preoccupied Dismissive
Enmeshed Cutoff
Birth
Enmeshed Differentiated Cutoff

0 25 50 75 100 75 50 25 0
Direction for Therapy
Towards further individuation Towards further togetherness
adolescence and adulthood. Falling in love or the birth of a child can ne-
cessitate conscious re-evaluations of relationship patterns. Therapy,
such as a re-examination of one’s family of origin attachment patterns
or emotionally focused couple therapy, can also fashion changes in
present attachment patterns.
Family of origin theory demonstrated a continuum of relationship
styles from enmeshed to differentiated to cutoff. Attachment theory of-
fered four attachment patterns for adults ranging from ambivalent/pre-
occupied to secure to fearful to avoidant/dismissive. A full range of poss-

ible attachment patterns, based upon both family of origin theory and at-
tachment theory, can be illustrated by means of Bowlby’s multi-path-
way schema. In this way, the normal secure/differentiated development
in the center of the pathways presents the healthy range of possibilities

of different blends of individuation and intimacy that can operate in one’s
life. In a similar vein as Knudson-Martin (1994), this schema enables
people to live and relate while leaning more on one side of the path-
ways, be that with preference for individuation or togetherness, accord-
ing to their own life experiences, and still reach the goal of secure/
differentiation. This schema more clearly accents these various path-
ways to secure/differentiated and both forces of individuation and to-
getherness are given equal, reciprocal importance. On the one hand,
there is a want for autonomy, freedom and individuation AND, on the
other hand, there is a need for intimacy, closeness, and togetherness.
These apparently opposite needs are a necessary and healthy part of
life and may change in their intensity and function depending upon
one’s stage of life and experiences on the way. Franz and White (1985)
put forth a universal model of human development wherein differentia-
tion of self and attachment are seen as two separate strands in psycho-
logical development, each of which needs to be well developed. The
zipper model (Horne & Hicks, 2002) also depicts a coming together of
individuation and togetherness but achieving this differentiation of self
is not seen to fit as nicely in the center as suggested by a zipper meta-
phor. Each person has a natural preference towards individuation or to-
getherness while the other side will also be solidly present for the
secure/differentiated person. The pathways taken through life can have
some leeway depending upon life experiences and the pathways trav-
eled can be redirected or rerouted somewhat as a result of life experi-
ences or therapy. In this schema, there is room for growth and change
and the possibility to better balance oneself towards the middle se-
cure/differentiated attachment position.
If one’s attachment patterns are located towards the outsides of the
schema, one begins to experience more dysfunctional expressions of at-
tachment such as ambivalent/preoccupied and enmeshed on the one
side, and fearful, avoidant/dismissive and cutoff on the other side. En-
meshment and cut-off would be seen as most dysfunctional as described
by Bowen (1978). Enmeshed and cut-off people live in a feeling world
and are unable to differentiate between thoughts and feelings. En-
meshed people are suggestible and quick to imitate others to gain accep-
tance or to seek out the ideal close relationship, while, at the other end of
Martin Rovers 53
the continuum, cut-off people are avoidant or fearful of relationship, some-

times seen as lone rangers. Enmeshed and cut-off people are both in the
realm of insecure/undifferentiated and thus can be sort of back doors to
each other. Many highly enmeshed or cut-off people can shift from an
enmeshed attachment pattern to cut-off quickly or reactively, a sort of

need-you-desperately or dump-you-quickly knee jerk reaction (Bowen,
1978). Secure/differentiated people tend to be more uniform and regular
in their attachment patterns, treating people in a similar and consistent
manner.
It is strongly noted, however, that all these attachment patterns lie on
a descriptive continuum and that exact diagnosis is not always possible
or desirable. The Bowen scale of differentiation allows graphic, albeit
more theoretical, assessments to be made that may help clients find a
possible place to position and know themselves on the range of attach-
ment patterns. Within this range of possible attachment patterns, and
since no one scores a perfect secure/differentiated 100, there can be a
variety of relationship expressions that probably tips each individual’s
attachment pattern either towards secure or insecure, towards greater
emphasis on individuation or togetherness. It helps choreograph the cli-
ent’s dance of attachment/differentiation more distinctly. By depicting
potential placement on the schema of attachment patterns for clients, the
picture can well be worth a thousand words both for their past and pres-
ent attachment patterns and for direction in their therapy.
There are many possible attachment patterns on this schema, at least six
specified from enmeshed to secure/differentiated to cut-off. Although
perhaps at first perplexing to the client, the different patterns illustrated
enable clients and therapist to talk about movement towards a more se-
cure/differentiated place for the clients and possible areas of insecurity
in relationships and to mutually arrive at some descriptors for clients.
Pathways taken in life are dependent upon many past experiences,
but especially family of origin legacy. Some childhood experiences
may have caused a person to incline or move further into the direction of
enmeshed/ambivalent. Other experiences within the family of origin
may have had the effect of swaying a person into the direction of fear-
ful/avoidant/dismissive and cutoff. A detailed family of origin history,
using instruments like the genogram, would expose childhood attach-
ment patterns and enable the client to become more aware of anteced-
ents of present relationship problems, thus gaining a more complete
picture of present attachment patterns. By means of this schema of at-
tachment patterns, the client would have more self-knowledge and a
better foundation upon which to engage in relationships.
Therapy is also delineated on this schema. The person whose attach-

ment pattern leans on the enmeshed/ambivalent side would be seen as
being fearful of further individuation and therefore, more individuating
steps would be the direction of therapy. On the other hand, the person
who prefers the cutoff/avoidant side of this attachment schema would

be seen as being fearful of intimacy and steps towards a deeper connect-
edness would be called for in therapy. Implications for therapy are elab-
orated on later in this paper.
THE GENOGRAM
How does a therapist and a client acquire and hold the data that would
delineate one’s family of origin history and especially one’s attachment
pattern of relationships? With such a variety of attachment possibilities,
and a vast array of life stories, how can the dimensions of one’s unfin-
ished business be accessed and brought to fruition in the present thera-
peutic process and made more clear for both therapist and client? How
can a client more easily understand oneself, especially the family of ori-
gin base in which their attachment pattern was born and become a more
active player in their own healing?
The genogram, or family tree, is a “clinical method of taking, storing,
and processing” (Tomson, 1985, p. 34) relationship information. Where-
as the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) (George, Kaplan, & Main,
1996) and the Family Background Questionnaire (Melchert & Sayger,
1998) are highly complex and time-consuming assessment tools, the
genogram is a relatively simple, non-intrusive, easily up-dated tool
which provides a quick reference for complex patterns of relationships.
As such, the genogram can be used as a source of assessment and hy-
pothesis for therapy. Like the AAI, the genogram can help reveal mem-
ories of childhood relationships with parents, together with current
partner attachment patterns, to delineate recurring relationship patterns.
This flexibility allows the clinician to make better assessments of both
partners, thus providing an excellent panorama of attachment patterns
and the balance of individuation and togetherness in the relationship.
The genogram is both a therapeutic intervention and part of the process
of counselling (McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985).
Genogram construction can reveal attachment patterns, whether en-
meshed or cutoff, or the attachment possibilities that lie between the
two. In couple therapy, each partner can then understand their own and
their partner’s attachment pattern, begin to know and accept self and un-
Martin Rovers 55
derstand and appreciate possible couple differences. Repetitive patterns

of functioning suggest the possibility of these attachment patterns con-
tinuing in the present and into the future (McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985).
Reciprocal and cyclical relationship patterns can be pictured.
As the genogram is being constructed, two lines of questions, similar

in content to parts of the Adult Attachment Interview, are developed:
(1) felt memory-words for significant others, especially parents and
partners and (2) relationship space/place within the family context.
Each partner is asked to enumerate 3-5 “nice” descriptor words that
come to mind when they, especially as a child between the ages of 5-10,
remember their father/mother. In a similar fashion, each is asked to
identify 3-5 “not-so-nice” words for mom and dad. A similar exercise
can be done for siblings. Carefully listening to both the experiences and
process of how the client communicated these descriptor words can re-
veal attachment patterns. Therapists find it profitable to observe and
take note of any comments made by the partners, as well as non-verbal
communication during the genogram construction.
Adults with a secure/differentiated attachment pattern tend to de-
scribe their family of origin experiences and their own dynamics as con-
sistently responsive (Holmes, 1997); sense of personal identity; positive
view of self and others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991); “easy to get
close to others” (Hazen & Shaver, 1990); balanced autonomy and
connectedness (Bowen, 1978: McGoldrick & Carter, 2001). They value
attachment and can realistically talk about it.
Adults with an enmeshed/ambivalent/preoccupied attachment pat-
tern tend to describe their family of origin experiences and their own dy-
namics as inconsistently responsive (Holmes, 1997); negative view of
self, positive view of others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991); parents
lacking in love but not rejecting; parents unreliable; a fight for parental
attention; confused discussion of relationships; passive and/or angry
speech; dependency; “we-ness” (Bowen, 1978); compulsive care giv-
ing (West & Sheldon-Keller, 1994); and “others are reluctant to get as
close as I would like” (Hazen & Shaver, 1990). These adults are still
caught in old struggles for personal identity.
Adults with an avoidant/dismissive/cutoff attachment pattern often-
times describe their family of origin experiences with parents as well as
their own dynamics as consistently unresponsive (Holmes, 1997); posi-
tive view of self, negative view of others (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991); compulsive self-sufficiency (West & Sheldon-Keller, 1994);
parents were rejecting, distant, withdrawn away a lot; false claim to nor-
mality; independent, invulnerable and deny need for relationships; “emo-
tional distancing” (Bowen, 1978); detached from feelings; consequen-

ces of negative behavior go unchecked; and “uncomfortable being too
close to others” (Hazen & Shaver, 1990). They downplay the importance
of intimate relationships. The case study will further amplify this as-
sessment.
The process/feelings attached to the experience of finding words is also
revealing. Some people are hesitant to say anything nice or not-so-nice.
Others can’t find the words. For some, speaking the words can bring
forth feelings of pride and love, for others feelings of pain or hurt. All
these can reveal attachment patterns ranging from enmeshed to secure
to cutoff. The schema of attachment patterns can be shown to clients to
help them locate themselves, but some caution and professional judge-
ment is needed here, for many people may be uncomfortable talking
about parents, feeling like they may be blaming parents, or fearful to
identify him/herself before a partner with whom there is still present
conflict. On the other hand, partners can be very helpful in observing the
other’s attachment patterns within family of origin as the partner often
has a more objective view.
A second line of questions tries to uncover space/place within the
family system. Where did this client fit in the affections of father/
mother? Who was mom’s/dad’s favorite child when the client was 5-10
years old? With whom was one closest? Mom? Dad? Sibling? Other?
How would the client describe their relationship pattern with Dad? Mom?
Sibling? Answers can also point toward a specific attachment pattern.
CASE STUDY
Mary and Joe came into therapy to deal with couple distance and con-
tinuous conflict, including verbal abuse towards each other (see Figure
2). Mary and Joe have known each other for 11 years, have lived to-
gether for five years, and have been married for two years. They have no
children. Presenting issues include: family of origin interference, espe-
cially by Joe’s mother; arguing over affection and sex, and quarrelling
about how much money can be spent on family members for birthdays.
Mary is the more verbal of the couple and complains how Joe’s mother
controls him. Joe phones home almost every day and especially after a
fight, to talk and seek guidance from his mom. A strong antagonism has
developed between Mary and Joe’s parents, to the point that Mary will
no longer visit Joe’s family. Joe complains that Mary is mean-spirited,
argumentative, and distant. His requests for affection are spurned.
Martin Rovers 57
Mary is the middle of three children, but functions as the family lead-
er and arbitrator since her older brother is “out of it,” doing drugs and
jail time. Mary has been in open conflict with dad since her teenage
years and has “put him in his place.” On the other hand, Mary also has
little time for mom, whom she sees as weak and passive. Joe suggests
that on the outside, Mary is independent and capable, and on the inside,
Mary is depressed, closed, and cold.
Joe is the younger of two. His older sister moved away from home to
attend university and “never comes home” very much. There is much
conflict between the two siblings. Joe describes his father as his best
friend and “my strength.” His dad also is narrow and can be harsh with
his words. Joe describes his mother as kind, but one who is never
wrong. He feels her control, but renames it concern for him. Joe relates
how mom can also give the “cold shoulder” when Joe does not do all
that is asked of him.
In the genogram construction, Mary presented as quite cut off from
her own family, including a dismissive demeanor with her own parents
as well as with Joe and his family. Conflict with dad in her early years
set her up as the family “heavy” who had to defend mom and other sib-
lings. When family members turn to her for intervention, Mary tends to
lecture them on what to do. Although Mary preaches a gospel of inde-
pendence, especially for Joe, she presents as insecure in herself, some-
what depressed and alone. Mary has fought so many battles, especially
for others, that she has not had time to know herself. Therapy has fo-
cussed on her understanding of these family dynamics and giving her
permission to work on her own self-care and happiness. Mary began to
see her own dismissive/cutoff attachment pattern and earnestly desired
to reconnect “on her own terms” with others. On the schema of attach-
ment patterns, Mary might be scored as a 45-50 on the avoidant/dis-
missive/cutoff side of the schema of attachment patterns. In therapy,
Mary began moving closer to Joe and her family of origin, especially
her parents, while stating clearly what she will allow and for what she
will no longer accept responsibility. This more mature sense of connec-
tion and intimacy also enabled Mary to feel better about herself.
Joe presents a picture of a strongly enmeshed person who is unable to
take much of an independent stance, especially by saying “no” to par-
ents. Joe is preoccupied with what others, especially mom, may think/
feel and he has a strong need for the approval and affection of signifi-
cant others. In therapy, Joe was ambivalent about early suggestions that
he ‘leave father and mother and cling to his wife’ and that he could prac-
tice this by phoning home less frequently and thus take a more inde-
FIGURE 2. Couple Genogram
“My strength” kind passionate loving

my best friend strong funny sweet
funny-talker no faults gone/worked away passive

fast to get angry controlling alcoholic not speak up
narrow-minded shouts verbally abusive fear to confront
vindictive mean/scary
1942 1943 1938 1939

60 59 64 63
Joseph dependent Elizabeth Primo blaming Paulina
m. 1962 m. 1969
1964 1971 1977

38 31 25
Paula Primo Susan
therapist drugs at home
independent jail quiet
always gone
1967 1973
35 29
verbal abuse
Joe Mary
LT. 5 yrs, m. 2 yrs
I need assurance left home at age 17

wants more hugs and affection capable/independent
perfectionist “Don’t touch me”
fears new things family negotiator
phone mom every day angry/yells a lot
fast temper depressed/impatient
pendent stance vis-a-vis his mother. Even when Joe began to take some
distance and a more objective stance, his comments exhibited much fear
about the reactions of others. On the schema of attachment patterns, Joe
might be seen as a 45-50 on the preoccupied/enmeshed side of the
schema of attachment patterns. As Joe began to individuate more with
mom, he found himself better able to listen to Mary.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY
The therapeutic task for each partner is two-fold: (1) to become aware
of one’s own level of differentiation, including one’s attachment pattern
Martin Rovers 59
as it operates in relationship, and (2) to gently restructure one’s inter-

actional pattern towards a more secure, differentiated position (Bowen,
1978; McGoldrick & Carter, 2001).
The schema for attachment patterns presented in this paper has posi-
tive implications for therapy. Using the genogram allows for a quick as-
sessment of relationship patterns for use in therapy and this can be
scored/marked and illustrated on the scale of differentiation on the
schema of attachment patterns. Although meant more as a global as-
sessment of attachment, best obtained through a mutual dialogue be-
tween client and therapist, clients can visualize their own score on the
scale of differentiation as well as the score of their partner. Bowen
strongly suggested that clients need to, first of all, understand their own
family of origin dynamics and become objective observers and re-
searchers of their progress towards differentiation. This objective as-
sessment of the genogram and the clients’ positioning on the schema of
attachment patterns can assist each partner to know oneself more
deeply, including how their insecure attachment pattern or undiffer-
entiation was born in the family of origin and how it might function and
have an impact in the couple relationship today.
Family of origin therapy is not to relive an old memory or to blame
parents for all that may have gone wrong in life. Rather, a review of
family of origin relationship patterns, from the ‘there and then’ can pro-
vide a “working model” or blueprint of present functioning and thus
help clients obtain a better grasp of the ‘here and now.’ Unfinished busi-
ness of the past is probably one therapeutic issue clients trip over again
and again. The old family of origin map/attachment patterns that have
been followed most of life needs adjustment and updating to better fit
present adult life relationships. Knowing where one came from, in
terms of attachment patterns, enables one to seek paths and pathways
towards the middle ground of more secure/differentiated relationships
in present relationships. In other words, the client can stand more sol-
idly on the two feet of past and present attachment patterns, by observ-
ing his or her family of origin functioning and by focusing on present
emotional attachments.
At the same time, the genogram and the schema of attachment pat-
terns also permits people to see their partner more objectively and begin
to appreciate their partner’s insecure attachment pattern and undiffer-
entiation to be somewhat equal to their own. Partners can also learn to
appreciate their own and their partner’s attachment pattern as a wound
that each brings into the relationship, rather than some supposed delib-
erate meanness. The genogram and the schema of attachment patterns
helps clients to picture, understand and appreciate the couple relation-

ship more concretely and fathom the cycle of their dance of attachment.
Each couple dances a distinct dance of individuation and togetherness,
but, according to Bowen and Bowlby, most of the dance steps were pre-
viously learned within the family of origin.

This schema is also useful in planning therapy. Positions on the
schema of attachment patterns can point the direction for therapy, espe-
cially when viewed as endeavours to bring balance to the two forces of
togetherness and separateness. Each person needs intimacy, connected-
ness, love, security AND, at the same time, individuation, independ-
ence, autonomy. The balancing of these in some middle fashion has
been called the secure enough base and place of differentiation. Partners
who score lower on the side of enmeshment will need to move in the di-
rection of individuation, learning to make decisions of their own, speak-
ing their own mind and feelings and connecting with others as choice.
Partners who score lower on the cutoff side will need to learn to find
ways to connect and become more intimate with others, partner, family
members, and significant friends.
CONCLUSION
When it comes to loving and being loved, people often tend to react
in patterns reflective of the past, specifically attachment patterns ab-
sorbed in the family of origin. These attachment patterns have become
interwoven into ways of thinking and being, thus providing an internal
diagram or working model for being in a close relationship. Parents
whose love over time integrates the child’s inner experiences in ways
that make it possible for the child to understand, nurture, and care for
her/himself, and through this, create a space for his/her private personal
growth, encourages the child to move towards his or her “differentiation
of self” or more secure attachment pattern. In contrast, in a poorly dif-
ferentiated family, the child tends to function in reaction to others and
tends to become more enmeshed or cut-off. Attachment patterns that
have been absorbed from family of origin can become interwoven into
our present day relationships. Becoming aware of attachment patterns
helps partners know themselves more deeply, better handle their own
emotional reactivity, become more acute observers of the dance of at-
tachment, and help partners focus on the couple’s attachment pattern,
and bring thoughtfulness to bear in seeking new pathways towards a se-
cure/differentiated position.
Martin Rovers 61
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment:
A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. & Wittig, B. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of

one-year-olds in a strange situation. In B.M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of Infant Be-
havior, 4, 111-136. London: Methuen.
Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A
test of the four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
226-244.
Bogard, M. (1988). Enmeshment, Fusion or Relatedness? A Conceptual Analysis. New
York: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Bowen, M. (1976). Theory in the practice of psychotherapy. In P.J. Guerin (Ed.), Fam-
ily Therapy: Theory and Practice. New York: Gardner Press.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. New York: Jason Aronson.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol.1: Attachment. London: Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2: Separation. London: Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 3: Loss. London: Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base. Clinical Application of Attachment Theory. London:
Routledge.
Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
romantic attachment: An integrative approach. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes
(Eds.), Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Caperton-Brown, E.H. (1992). Ethnic and Gender Differences in Intergenerational
Family Processes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation; University of Houston.
Dankoski, M.E. (2001). Pulling on the heart strings: An emotionally focused approach
to family life cycle transitions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 177-
187.
Davis, B. & Jones, L.C. (1992). Differentiation of self and attachment among adult
daughters. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 13, 321-331.
Diehl, M., Elnick, A.B., Bourbeau, L.S., & La Louvie-Vief, G. (1998). Adult attach-
ment styles: Their relations to family context and personality. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 74, 1656-1669.
Fraley, R.C. & Waller, N.G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typologi-
cal model. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment Theory and Close
Relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.
Franz, C.E. & White, K.M. (1985). Individuation and attachment in personality devel-
opment: Extending Erikson’s theory. Journal of Personality, 53, 224-256.
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). An Adult Attachment Interview: Interview
Protocol. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley.
Goldberg, S. (1991). Recent developments in attachment theory and research. Cana-
dian Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 393-400.
Havestraldt, A.J., Anderson, W.T., Piercy, F.P., Cochran, S.W., & Fine, M. (1985). A
family of origin scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 287-297.
Hazan, C. & Shavar, P.R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment pro-
cess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Holmes, J. (1997). Attachment, autonomy, intimacy: Some clinical implications of at-
tachment theory. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70, 231-248.
Horne, K.B. & Hicks, M.W. (2002). All in the family: A belated response to Knudson-
Martin’s feminist revision of Bowen Theory. Journal of Marital and Family Ther-
apy, 28,103-113.
Howe, D., Brandon, M., Hinings, D., & Schofield, G. (1999). Attachment Theory,
Child Maltreatment and Family Support: A Practice and Assessment Model. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, S.M. & Grenberg, L.S. (1992). Emotionally focused therapy: Restructuring
attachments. In S.H. Budman, M.F. Hoyt, & S. Friedman (Eds.), The First Session
in Brief Therapy (pp. 204-224). New York: Guilford Press.
Johnson, S. (1996). Creating Connections: The Practice of Emotionally Focused Ther-
apy. Levittown, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Kerr, M. & Bowen, M. (1988). Family Evaluations: An Approach Based on Bowen
Theory. New York: W.W. Norton.
Knudson-Martin. C. (1994). The female voice: Applications of Bowen’s family sys-
tems theory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 20, 35-46.
Knudson-Martin, C. (2002). Expanding Bowen’s legacy to family therapy: A response
to Horne and Hicks. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 115-118.
Main, M. & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are related to
infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental be-
havior the linking mechanism? In Greenberg, M.T, & Cicchetti, D. (Eds.), Attach-
ment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research and Intervention. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Main, M. & Hesse, E. (1999). Second-generation effects of unresolved trauma in non-
maltreating parents: Dissociated, frightened and threatening parental behavior. Psy-
choanalytic Inquiry, 19, 481-540.
Main, M. & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/dis-
oriented during the Strange Situation. In M.T. Goldberg, D. Ciccetti, & E. M.
Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in Preschool Years: Theory, Research and Interven-
tion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adult-
hood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.),
Growing Points of Attachment Theory and Research, Monographs for the Society
for Research in Child Development, 50, 66-104.
McGoldrick, M. & Gerson, R. (1985). Genograms in Family Assessment. New York:
W.W. Norton.
McGoldrick, M. & Carter, B. (2001). Advances in coaching: Family therapy with one
person. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 281-300.
Melchert, T.P. & Sayger, T.V. (1998). The development of an instrument for measur-
ing family of origin characteristics. Educational and Psychological Measurements,
58, 99-118.
Rastogi, M. & Wampler, K.S. (1999). Adult daughters’ perceptions of the mother-
daughter relationship: A cross-cultural comparison. Family Relations, 48, 327-336.
Martin Rovers 63
Simpson, J.A. & Rhodes, W.S. (1998). Attachment Theory and Close Relationships.
New York: Guilford Press.
Sperling, M.B. & Berman, W.H. (1994). Attachment in Adults: Clinical and Develop-
mental Perspectives. New York: The Guilford Press.
Sroufe, L.A. & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child

Development, 48, 1184-1199.
Titelman, P. (1998). Clinical Applications of Bowen Family Systems Theory. New
York: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Tomson, P. (1985). Genograms in general practice. Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine Supplement, 78, 34-39.
Weinfield, N.S., Sroufe, L.A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E.A. (1999). The nature of indi-
vidual differences in infant-caregiver attachment. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Weiss, R.S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C.M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hindes
(Eds.), (1992). The Place of Attachment in Human Behavior. New York: Basic
Books.
West, M.L. & Sheldon-Keller, A.E. (1994). Patterns of Relating: An Adult Attachment
Perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Williamson, D. (1991). The Intimacy Paradox: Personal Authority in the Family Sys-
tem. New York: Guilford Press.
SUBMITTED: 8/16/02
ACCEPTED: 10/24/02

Family of Origin, Attachment, and Genogram AFT PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Family of Origin, Attachment, and Genogram AFT PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Family of Origin Theory,

Article in Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy · December 2004

Available from: Martin Rovers

Journal of Couple &

Family of Origin Theory,

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J398v03n04_03

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Developing a New Assessment Paradigm

ABSTRACT. Although family of origin theory and attachment theory

KEYWORDS. Family of origin, attachment, differentiation, secure base,

Martin Rovers, PhD, is a Psychologist, an AAMFT Clinical Member and Approved

To understand attachment, one must begin to fathom how each per-

lationship patterns ranging from differentiation to fusion/emotional cut-

FAMILY OF ORIGIN THEORY

A family of origin can be conceptualized as the living unit in which a

Family and couple relationship interactions tend to be highly recipro-

needs, becoming intimate” (Knudson-Martin, 2002, p. 116). Knudson-

sented a ‘zipper model’ wherein togetherness and individuality are seen

of differentiation can be reconceptualized to look a bit more like this:

Enmeshment/Fusion Differentiation Emotional Cutoff

Bowen (Kerr & Bowen, 1988) divided his scale of differentiation

Bowlby’s attachment theory has increased awareness of the impor-

throughout life. Bowlby described the process of intergenerational trans-

Attachment and Couple Relationships

Bowlby’s attachment theory provides the theoretical model to ac-

Attachment theory is intergenerational, especially in regard to assess-

FAMILY OF ORIGIN THEORY

To illustrate attachment patterns, Bowlby borrowed a schema from

FIGURE 1. Schema of Attachment Patterns

Togetherness balancing Individuation

Enmeshed Differentiated Cutoff

Direction for Therapy

Towards further individuation Towards further togetherness

occupied to secure to fearful to avoidant/dismissive. A full range of poss-

in the center of the pathways presents the healthy range of possibilities

the continuum, cut-off people are avoidant or fearful of relationship, some-

enmeshed attachment pattern to cut-off quickly or reactively, a sort of

Therapy is also delineated on this schema. The person whose attach-

who prefers the cutoff/avoidant side of this attachment schema would

derstand and appreciate possible couple differences. Repetitive patterns

As the genogram is being constructed, two lines of questions, similar

tional distancing” (Bowen, 1978); detached from feelings; consequen-

FIGURE 2. Couple Genogram

“My strength” kind passionate loving

funny-talker no faults gone/worked away passive

1942 1943 1938 1939

1964 1971 1977

I need assurance left home at age 17

as it operates in relationship, and (2) to gently restructure one’s inter-

helps clients to picture, understand and appreciate the couple relation-

viously learned within the family of origin.

Ainsworth, M.D.S. & Wittig, B. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of

Sroufe, L.A. & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi