Attachment Theory: The Bonds of Intimacy

PSYC 106

One of the most influential developmental theories attachment theory - was produced by John Bowlby, which he laid out in a series off books from 1969 to 1980. Bowlbys theory was based on the assumption that babies and adult caregivers (in all species) have evolved to develop powerful bonds with each other. Why? Because mammalian infants are helpless, and unless at least one parent provides food and protection for long periods they will not survive and thus pass on the genes of their parent(s).

Based on observations of both human infants and other mammalian species, Bowlby discovered a standard pattern of responses produced by young offspring when separated from their parent(s):

protest, then despair, then detachment.

Bowlby hypothesized that this pattern has evolved to alert the parent and re-establish contact. If this strategy fails, then remaining quiet may be the best way of avoiding predators or danger. Finally, detachment might have the function of clearing away failed attachments and allowing a secure attachment to develop with another adult.

The next most important elaboration of attachment theory was provided by Mary Ainsworth (a colleague of Bowlby), who developed the so-called laboratory strange situation. In this procedure 12-18 month-old infants are left with a stranger in a lab. setting, and then the mother leaves. The mother then returns a few minutes later. Thus, this design stresses the infant and exposes them to two cues to danger being left alone and being exposed to a stranger.

Ainsworth expected that the infants would become distressed when their mothers left, seek physical contact when they returned, and subsequently calm down and return to playing with their toys. Indeed, this was the most common response of the American babies tested (subsequently categorized as secure), but many did not. Some did not pay much attention to their mothers, were not particularly distressed when the mother left, and more or less ignored the mother on return these infants were termed avoidant. The remaining 10 to 15% tended to behave in a contradictory fashion when the mother returned, whining, crying, and seeking physical contact, yet resisting and struggling at the same time the so-called ambivalent infants. The next slide shows the percentages of infants that research generally shows fit into each category

Ainsworth: Lab Strange Situation

Secure
20%

Anxious/ambivalent

Avoidant

10%

70%

 The short film shown next illustrates a

simplified version of the lab. strange situation, illustrating two infant attachment styles: Secure and what the narrator claims is an insecure style.

For the child who has an insecure style, do

you think he/she is avoidant or ambivalent?

Discussion Questions (as a class)

Why do you think infants would differ in their behavior in the lab strange situation?

That is, what makes infants Secure, Avoidant, or Ambivalent?

Hazan and Shavers Big Bang (1987).

 Hazan and Shaver (1987) were the first to

apply attachment theory to adult relationships. This article kicked off a massive surge in research on adult attachment. Hazan and Shaver postulated that falling in love (as an adult) is very similar to the process of bonding between infants and parents. Consider, for example, the following similarities:

Eye-contact

Physical Affection

Playing together

Distress on Separation

The next two slides describe the similarities between adult romantic attachment and child/parent attachment in more detail.

Infant Attachment
Quality of attachment bond depends on ATs responsiveness AT provides secure base for infant to feel safe and to explore Attachment behaviour includes holding, touching, kissing, rocking, smiling, crying When stressed (afraid, sick , threatened) infant seeks physical contact with AT Distress at separation, depression if reunion seems impossible Infants share toys, discoveries

Romantic Love
Love depends on targets actual or imagined responsiveness LT causes person to feel safe and confident Love behaviour includes holding, touching, kissing, rocking, smiling, crying When stressed (afraid, sick , threatened) lovers seeks physical contact with LT Distress at separation, depression if reunion seems impossible Lovers share toys, discoveries

AT = attachment target

LT = love target

Infant Attachment
Infant and AT engage in prolonged eye contact Infant and AT seem fascinated with each others physical features

Romantic Love
Lovers engage in prolonged eye contact Lovers seem fascinated with each others physical features

Usually one key attachment relationship

Use baby talk, nicknames, coo Upon reunion, infants smile, and reach to be picked up AT exquisitely sensitive to infants needs
AT = attachment target

Usually one key attachment relationship

Use baby talk, nicknames, coo Upon reunion, lovers smile, hug Lovers exquisitely sensitive to each others needs
LT = love target

Discussion questions (as a class)

Are you convinced? Do you see some important differences

between adult romantic love and child/parent love?

Using questionnaires, research has established that, like infants, adults tend to fall into one of three categories described below, and in similar numbers to those found using the lab. strange procedure. The following slides show the set of scales used by Hazan and Shaver for measuring adult attachment working models. Participants are asked to rate the extent to which each description is accurate.

Avoidant
I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others. I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often love partners want to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

Anxious
I find that others are reluctant to get as close to me as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesnt really love me or wont want to stay with me. I want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people away.

Secure
I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them. I dont often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.

Using these notes, and the chapter from Fletcher (2002) as background reading, get into groups of 5 or 6 and discuss the following questions:

Can an individual be secure and ambivalent? To what extent are our adult attachment working models fixed

by our childhood experiences? Can having a good adult relationship change an insecure attachment style into a secure attachment style? Might attachment working models differ across categories of relationships?; e.g., could you have a secure model with friends and an avoidant model with romantic partners? If so, why? Imagine James had an avoidant working model, and he was in in an intimate sexual relationship: a) what would James expect from his partner?, b) if his partner forgot to pick him up at the airport, how might he explain this behavior, c) if his partner needed help, what emotions would James feel?