Attachment theory

Attachment theory originated in the work of John Bowlby. In infants it is primarily a

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

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

Attachment theory uses a set of assumptions to connect observable human social

behaviors. These assumptions form a coherent whole that fits with available data. The
following is a list of the assumptions that form the theory:[2]

1.Adaptiveness: Common human attachment behaviors and emotions are adaptive.

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

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

3. Developmental changes: Specific attachment behaviors begin with predictable,

apparently innate, behavior in infancy, but change with age in ways that are partly
determined by experiences and by situational factors. For example, a toddler is likely to
cry when separated from his mother, but an 8-year-old is more likely to call out, "When
are you coming back to pick me up?" and/or to turn away and begin the familiar school
day.

4. Experience as essential factor in attachment: Infants in their first months have no

preference for their biological parents over strangers and are equally friendly to anyone
who treats them kindly. Preferences for particular people, and behaviors which solicit
their attention and care, develop over a period of time.

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

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

7. Transactional processes: As attachment behaviors change with age, they do so in ways

shaped by relationships, not by individual experiences. A child's behavior when reunited
with a caregiver after a separation is determined not only by how the caregiver has
treated the child before, but on the history of effects the child has had on the caregiver in
the past.

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

9.Robustness of development: Attachment to and preferences for some familiar people

are easily developed by most young humans, even under far less than ideal
circumstances.

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

Attachment is an affectional tie that one person or animal forms between him/herself and
another specific one (usually the parent) — a tie that binds them together in space and
endures over time.[3]. Attachment theory states that attachment is a developmental process
based on the evolved adaptive tendency for young children to maintain proximity to a
familiar person, called the attachment figure.[4] Attachment Theory has become the
dominant theory used today in the study of infant and toddler behavior and in the fields of
infant mental health, treatment of children, and related fields. Many evidence-based
treatment approaches are based on applications of attachment theory.

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

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

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

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

Bowlby's view of attachment was also influenced by observations of young children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Fonagy and Mary Target have attempted to bring attachment theory and
psychoanalysis into a closer relationship by way of such aspects of cognitive science as
mentalization, the ability to estimate what the beliefs or intentions of another person may
be. [14]

A "natural experiment" has permitted extensive study of attachment issues, as researchers

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

Basic attachment theory

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

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

• Avoidant Attachment - The child shows little to no signs of distress at the

mother's departure, a willingness to explore the toys, and little to no visible
response to the mother's return.

• Ambivalent Attachment - The child shows sadness on the mother's departure,

ability to be picked up by the stranger and even 'warm' to the stranger, and on the
mother's return, some ambivalence, signs of anger, reluctance to 'warm' to her and
return to play.

• Disorganized Attachment - The child presents stereotypes upon the mother's

return after separation, such as freezing for several seconds or rocking. This
appears to indicate the child's lack of coherent coping strategy. Children who are
classified as disorganized are also given a classification as secure, ambivalent or
avoidant based on their overall reunion behavior.
Additionally, the attachment patterns observed in children are correlated with certain
behavior patterns and communication styles in the attachment figure:

• Secure Attachment - The attachment figure responds appropriately, promptly

and consistently to the emotional as well as the physical needs of the child. She
helps her child to transition and regulate stress, and as a result, the child uses her
as a secure base in the home environment.

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

• Ambivalent Attachment - The attachment figure is inconsistent with her child;

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

• Disorganized Attachment - This can be associated with frightened/disoriented

behaviour, intrusiveness/negativity and withdrawal, role/boundary confusion,
affective communication errors and child maltreatment.

Changes in attachment after the infant-toddler period

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

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

Some commentators have provided a more extensive discussion of the development of

attachment behavior and the internal working model after the toddler period [5] They
suggest that the preschool period involves the use of negotiation, bargaining, and
compromise as part of attachment behavior, and that these social skills ideally become
incorporated into the internal working model of social relationships, to be used with other
children and later with adult peers. As children move into the school years, most develop
a goal-corrected partnership with parents, in which each partner is willing to give up
some desires in order to maintain the relationship in a gratifying form. Incorporation of
this type of partnership into the internal working model prepares the growing child for
later mature friendships, marriage, and parenthood. The mature internal working model
of social relationships thus advances far beyond the basic desire to maintain proximity to
familiar people, although this type of behavior may continue to be present in times of
threat or pain.

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

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

Attachment in adult romantic relationships

Hazan and Shaver extended attachment theory to adult romantic relationships in 1987. It
was originally characterized by three dimensions: secure, anxious/ambivalent and
avoidant. Later research showed that attachment is best thought of as two different
dimensions: anxiety and avoidance. These dimensions are often drawn as an X and Y
axis. In this model secure individuals are low in both anxiety and avoidance. Thus,
attachment can also be broken down into four categories: secure, anxious-ambivalent
(preoccupied), avoidant (dismissive), and fearful-avoidant. However, people's attachment
varies continuously so most researchers do not currently think in terms of categories.
Attachment research into romantic relationships has led to a wide variety of findings.
Mario Mikulincer has shown through a wide variety of studies that attachment influences
how well people are able to cope with stress in their life. Nancy Collins and colleagues
have shown that attachment influences many kinds of care-giving behavior. Jeff Simpson
and Steve Rholes have conducted a number of studies showing that attachment influences
how people parent their newborn children and how well they are able to cope with the
stress of having a newborn child.

Attachment 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.

Reactive attachment disorder

Reactive Attachment Disorder — sometimes referred to by its initials, "RAD" — is a

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

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

1. Bretherton,I. and Munholland,K., A. Internal Working Models in Attachment

Relationships: A Construct Revisited. Handbook of Attachment:Theory, Research and
Clinical Applications 1999eds Cassidy,J. and Shaver, P., R. Guilford press ISBN 1-
57230-087-6
2. ^ Mercer, J (2006). Understanding attachment: Parenting, child care, and emotional
development. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. LCCN 2005019272. ISBN 0-275-98217-
3. OCLC 61115448.
3. ^ Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton (1974) "Infant-mother attachment". In M.P.M. Richards
(Ed.) Integration of a child into a social world.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
4. ^ a b Bowlby J [1969] (1999). Attachment, 2nd edition, Attachment and Loss (vol. 1),
New York: Basic Books. LCCN 00266879; NLM 8412414. ISBN 0-465-00543-8 (pbk).
OCLC 11442968.
5. ^ a b c d e Suttie, I. (1935) 'the origins of love and hate.' London: Penguin.
6. ^ Bowlby, J. (2005). The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. Routledge Classics.
ISBN 0-415-35481-1.
7. ^ The Nature of Love (1958) - Harry Harlow, American Psychologist, 13, 573-685
8. ^ Levy, D. (1935). American Journal of Psychiatry, 94:643-x
9. ^ Bowlby,J. (1944). "Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their characters and home life."
International Journal of Psychoanalysis,25:19-52,107-127 (sometimes referred to by
Bowlby's colleagues as "Ali Bowlby and the Forty Thieves.")
10. ^ Tinbergen, N., & Tinbergen, E. (1983) CITATION NEEDED]
11. ^ Freud,A., & Burlingham, D.T. (1943). War and children. Medical War Books.
12. ^ Spitz, Rene (1945). Hospitalism: An Inquiry into the Genesis of Psychiatric Conditions
in Early Childhood.
13. ^ Craik, K. (1943) The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.
14. ^ a b Robbins, P., & Zacks, J.M. (2007)"Attachment theory and cognitive science:
Commentary on Fonagy and Target", Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association, 55(2):909-920.
15. ^ Bowlby J (1973). Separation: Anxiety & Anger, Attachment and Loss (vol. 2);
(International psycho-analytical library no.95). London: Hogarth Press. ISBN
0712666214 (pbk). ISBN 0-70120-301-3. OCLC 8353942.
16. ^ Bowlby J (1980). Loss: Sadness & Depression, Attachment and Loss (vol. 3);
(International psycho-analytical library no.109). London: Hogarth Press. ISBN 0-465-
04238-4 (pbk). ISBN 0-70120-350-1. OCLC 59246032.
17. ^ Bretherton I (Sep 1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary
Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology 28 (5): 759-775. ISSN 0012-1649.
18. ^ Sroufe, L.A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child
Development, 48:1184-1199
19. ^ Tronick, E.Z., Morelli, G.A., & Ivey, P.K. (1992). "The Efe forager infant and toddler's
pattern of social relationships: Multiple and simultaneous." Developmental Psychology,
28:568-577
20. ^ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
21. ^ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment theoretical
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270-280.
22. ^ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for
research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.
23. ^ Rutter, M (Jan/Feb 2002). Nature, nurture, and development: From evangelism through
science toward policy and practice. Child Development 73 (1): 1-21. doi:10.1111/1467-
8624.00388. ISSN 0009-3920. PMID 14717240.
 24. ^ Main,M and Solomon,J. (1986)'Discovery of an insecure disoriented attachment
pattern: procedures,findings and implications for the classification of behavior.' Affective
Development in Infancy, ed. T. Brazelton and M. Youngman, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
25. ^ Verschueren K; Marcoen A; Schoefs V (Oct 1996). The internal working model of the
self, attachment, and competence in five-year-olds. Child Development 67 (5): 2493-
2511. doi:10.2307/1131636. ISSN 0009-3920. PMID 9022252.
26. Barrett, H. (2006) Attachment and the perils of parenting: a commentary and a
critique. National Family and Parenting Institute, London, UK.
27. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P., (Eds). (1999) Handbook of Attachment: Theory,
Research, and Clinical Applications. Guilford Press, NY.
28. Greenberg, MT, Cicchetti, D., & Cummings, EM., (Eds) (1990) Attachment in the
Preschool Years: Theory, Research and Intervention University of Chicago,
Chicago.
29. Greenspan, S. (1993) Infancy and Early Childhood. Madison, CT: International
Universities Press. ISBN 0-8236-2633-4.
30. Holmes J (1993). John Bowlby and attachment theory, Makers of modern
psychotherapy. London; New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-07730-3 (pbk).
ISBN 0-415-07729-X. OCLC 27266442.
31. Holmes, J. (2001) The Search for the Secure Base: Attachment Theory and
Psychotherapy. London: Brunner-Routledge. ISBN 1-58391-152-9.
32. Karen R (1998) Becoming Attached: First Relationships and How They Shape
Our Capacity to Love. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-511501-5.
33. Parkes, CM, Stevenson-Hinde, J., Marris, P., (Eds.) (1991) Attachment Across
The Life Cycle Routledge. NY. ISBN 0-415-05651-9
34. Siegler R., DeLoache, J. & Eisenberg, N. (2003) How Children develop. New
York: Worth. ISBN 1-57259-249-4.
35. Attachment & Human Development. ISSN 1469-2988.
36. Infant Mental Health Journal.

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

Attachment theory has led to a new understanding of child development. Children

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

Attachement styles in children

On the basis of their behaviours, children can be categorized into four groups. Each of
these groups reflects a different kind of attachment relationship with the mother. It should
be noted that Bowlby believed that mothers were the primary attachment figure in
children's lives, but subsequent research has confirmed that children form attachments to
both their mothers and their fathers. A child may have a different type of attachment to
each parent as well as to unrelated caregivers. Attachment style is thus not so much a part
of the child's thinking, but is characteristic of a specific relationship. However, after
about age four the child exhibits one primary consistent pattern of attachment in
relationships [2]

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

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

A frequently used method of assessing attachment styles in adults is the Adult

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

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

Secure attachment

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

In the traditional Ainsworth et al. (1978)[12] coding of the Strange Situation, secure infants
are denoted as "Group B" infants and they are further subclassified as B1, B2, B3, and
B4. Although these subgroupings refer to different stylistic responses to the comings and
goings of the caregiver, they were not given specific labels by Ainsworth and colleagues,
although their descriptive behaviors led others (including students of Ainsworth) to
devise a relatively 'loose' terminology for these subgroups. B1's have been referred to as
'secure-reserved', B2's as 'secure-inhibited', B3's as 'secure balanced,' and B4's as 'secure-
reactive.' In academic publications however, the classification of infants (if subgroups are
denoted) is typically simply "B1" or "B2" although more theoretical and review-oriented
papers surrounding attachment theory may use the above terminology.

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

Anxious-resistant insecure attachment

A child with an anxious-resistant attachment style is anxious of exploration and of

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

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

Anxious-avoidant insecure attachment

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

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

A fourth category termed disorganized attachment (Main & Solomon, 1990) [13] is
actually the lack of a coherent style or pattern for coping. While ambivalent and avoidant
styles are not totally effective, they are organized strategies for dealing with the world.
Evidence from Main et al. has suggested that children with disorganized attachment may
experience their caregivers as either frightening or frightened. A frightened caregiver is
alarming to the child, who uses social referencing techniques such as checking the adult's
facial expression to ascertain whether a situation is safe. A frightening caregiver is
usually so via aggressive behaviors towards the child (either mild or direct
physical/sexual behaviors) and puts the child in a dilemma which Main and colleagues
have called 'fear without solution.' In other words, the caregiver is both the source of the
child's alarm as well as the child's haven of safety. Through parental behaviors that are
frightening, the caregiver puts the child in an irresolvable paradox of approach-
avoidance. This paradox, in fact, may be one explanation for some of the 'stilling' and
'freezing' behaviors observed in children judged to be disorganized. Human interactions
are experienced as erratic, thus children cannot form a coherent, organized interactive
template. If the child uses the caregiver as a mirror to understand the self, the
disorganized child is looking into a mirror broken into a thousand pieces. It is more
severe than learned helplessness as it is the model of the self rather than of a situation. It
is important to note that when a child is judged disorganized, he or she is given a
secondary best-fitting 'organized' (i.e., secure, ambivalent, avoidant) classification as
well. This reflects the fact that attachment disorganization is thought to be a breakdown
of an inchoate organized attachment strategy. The degree to which the organized strategy
is fragmented however is often different in degree across infants judged to receive a
primary 'disorganized' classification.

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

Attachment and Treatment

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

References
1. ^ Tronick, Morelli, & Ivey, 1992, p.568. "Until recently, scientific accounts ... of the
infant's early social experiences converged on the view that the infant progresses from a
primary relationship with one individual... to relationships with a growing number of
people... This is an epigenetic, hierarchical view of social development. We have labeled
 this dominant view the continuous care and contact model (CCC...). The CCC model
developed from the writings of Spitz..., Bowlby..., and Provence and Lipton... on
institutionalized children and is represented in the psychological views of Bowlby...[and
others]. Common to the different conceptual frameworks is the belief that parenting
practices and the infant's capacity for social engagement are biologically based and
conform to a prototypical form. Supporters of the CCC model generally recognize that
the infant and caregiver are able to adjust to a range of conditions, but they consider the
adjustments observed to reflect biological variation. However, more extreme views (e.g.,
maternal bonding) consider certain variants as nonadaptive and as compromising the
child's psychological development. Bowlby's concept of monotropism is an exemplar of
the CCC perspective..." (Tronick, Morelli, & Ivey, 1992, p. 568).
2. ^ J. Cassidy & P. Shaver, (1999) Handbook of Attachment, NY:Guilford
3. ^ Hesse, E., (1999) Adult Attachment Interview in J. Cassidy & P. Shaver, (Eds.)
Handbook of Attachment NY:Guilford Press
4. ^ Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults:
A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-
244.
5. ^ Bartholomew, K., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Measures of attachment: Do they converge?
In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp.
25-45). New York: Guilford Press.
6. ^ Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.
7. ^ Crowell, J. A., & Treboux, D. (1995). A review of adult attachment measures:
Implications for theory and research. Social Development, 4, 294-327.
8. ^ Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory
analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 350-365.
9. ^ Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S., (1978). Patterns of Attachment.
Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ., 1978.
10. ^ Forbes, L.M., Evans, E.M., Moran, G., & Pederson, D.R. (2007). Change in atypical
maternal behavior predicts change in attachment disorganization from 12 to 24 months in
a high-risk sample. Child development, 78(3), 955-971.
11. ^ Hesse, E., (1999). The Adult Attachment Interview in Jude Cassidy & Phillip Shaver
(Eds.) Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. Guilford
Press, NY pp. 395-433.
12. ^ a b Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
13. ^ Main, M & Solomon, J., (1990). In Greenberg, M. T., Cicchetti, D., & Cummings, M.
(Eds.),. Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121-
160). The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

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

relationships.

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

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

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

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

• The emotional and behavioral dynamics of infant-caregiver relationships and adult

romantic relationships are governed by the same biological system.
• The kinds of individual differences observed in infant-caregiver relationships are similar
to the ones observed in romantic relationships.
• Individual differences in adult attachment behavior are reflections of the expectations and
beliefs people have formed about themselves and their close relationships on the basis of
their attachment histories; these "working models" are relatively stable and, as such, may
be reflections of early care giving experiences.
• Romantic love, as commonly conceived, involves the interplay of attachment, care
giving, and sex.

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

• Although the basic impetus for the formation of attachment relationships is provided by
biological factors, the bonds that children form with their caregivers are shaped by
interpersonal experience.
• Experiences in earlier relationships create internal working models and attachment styles
that systematically affect attachment relationships.
• The attachment orientations of adult caregivers influence the attachment bond their
children have with them.
• Working models and attachment orientations are relatively stable over time, but they are
not impervious to change.
 • Some forms of psychological maladjustment and clinical disorders are attributable in part
to the effects of insecure working models and attachment styles.

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

• People are biologically driven to form attachments with others, but the process of
forming attachments is influenced by learning experiences.
• Individuals form different kinds of attachments depending on the expectations and beliefs
they have about their relationships. These expectations and beliefs constitute internal
"working models" used to guide relationship behaviors.
• Internal "working models" are relatively stable even though they can be influenced by
experience.
• Individual differences in attachment can contribute positively or negatively to mental
health and to quality of relationships with others.

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

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

Secure Attachment

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

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

Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment

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

Fearful-Avoidant Attachment

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

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

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

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

Organization of working models

Bartholomew and Horowitz have proposed that working models consist of two parts. [9]
One part deals with thoughts about the self. The other part deals with thoughts about
others. They further propose that a person's thoughts about self are generally positive or
generally negative. The same applies to a person's thoughts about others. Thoughts about
others are generally positive or generally negative. In order to test these proposals,
Bartholomew and Horowitz have looked at the relationship between attachment styles,
self-esteem, and sociability. The diagram below shows the relationships they observed:
The secure and dismissive attachment styles are associated with higher self-esteem
compared to the anxious and fearful attachment styles. This corresponds to the distinction
between positive and negative thoughts about the self in working models. The secure and
anxious attachment styles are associated with higher sociability than the dismissive or
fearful attachment styles. This corresponds to the distinction between positive and
negative thoughts about others in working models. These results suggested working
models indeed contain two distinct domains--thoughts about self and thoughts about
others--and that each domain can be characterized as generally positive or generally
negative.

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

• information about the self

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

For example, if a person regularly asks his or her partner for a hug or kiss, and the partner
regularly responds with a hug or kiss, the person forms a relational schema representing
the predictable interaction. The schema contains information about the self (e.g., "I need
lots of physical affection"). It also contains information about the partner (e.g., "My
partner is an affectionate person"). And it contains information about the way the
interaction usually unfolds, which can be summarized by an IF-THEN statement (e.g.,
"IF I ask my partner for a hug or kiss, THEN my partner will respond with a hug or kiss
and comfort me"). Relational schemas help guide behavior in relationships by allowing
people to anticipate and plan for partner responses.
Baldwin and colleagues have proposed that working models of attachment are composed
of relational schemas. The fact that relational schemas contain information about the self
and information about others is consistent with previous conceptions of working models.
The unique contribution of relational schemas to working models is the information about
the way interactions with partners usually unfold. Relational schemas add the IF-THEN
statements about interactions to working models. To demonstrate that working models
are organized as relational schemas, Baldwin and colleagues created a set of written
scenarios that described interactions dealing with trust, dependency and closeness. [12] For
example, the scenarios for closeness included:

• You want to spend more time with your partner.

• You reach out to hug or kiss your partner.
• You tell your partner how deeply you feel for him or her.

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

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

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

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

In fact, several theorists have proposed a hierarchical organization of working models. [16]
[17] [18] [19] [20]
Pietromonaco and Barrett note:
"From this perspective, people do not hold a single set of working models of the self and others;
rather, they hold a family of models that include, at higher levels, abstract rules or assumptions
about attachment relationships and, at lower levels, information about specific relationships and
events within relationships. These ideas also imply that working models are not a single entity but
are multifaceted representations in which information at one level need not be consistent with
information at another level." (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2000, page 159) [21]

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

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

Stability of working models

Investigators study the stability of working models by looking at the stability of

attachment styles. Attachment styles reflect the thoughts and expectations that constitute
working models. Changes in attachment styles therefore indicate changes in working
models.

Around 70-80 percent of people experience no significant changes in attachment styles

over time. [25] [13] [26] [27] [28] The fact that attachment styles do not change for a majority of
people indicates working models are relatively stable. Yet, around 20-30 percent of
people do experience changes in attachment styles. These changes can occur over periods
of weeks or months. The number of people who experience changes in attachment styles,
and the short periods over which the changes occur, suggest working models are not rigid
personality traits.
Why attachment styles change is not well understood. Waters, Weinfield and Hamilton
propose that negative life experiences often cause changes in attachment styles. [29] Their
proposal is supported by evidence that people who experience negative life events also
tend to experience changes in attachment styles. [25] [30] [31] Davila, Karney and Bradbury
have identified four sets of factors that might cause changes in attachment styles: (a)
situational events and circumstances, (b) changes in relational schema, (c) personality
variables, and (d) combinations of personality variables and situational events. [32] They
conducted a study to see which set of factors best explained changes in attachment styles.
Interestingly, the study found that all four sets of factors cause changes in attachment
styles. Changes in attachment styles are complex and depend on multiple factors.

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

Satisfaction

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

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

Duration

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

Nor are secure attachment styles the only attachment styles associated with stable
relationships. People with anxious-preoccupied attachment styles often find themselves in
long-lasting, but unhappy, relationships. [48] [49] Anxious-preoccupied attachment styles
often involve anxiety about being abandoned and doubts about one's worth as a
relationship partner. These kinds of feelings and thoughts may lead people to stay in
unhappy relationships.

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

Affect regulation

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

• Conditions of the child (fatigue, hunger, illness, pain, cold, etc.)

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

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

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

The first strategy is called the security based strategy. The diagram below shows the
sequence of events in the security based strategy.
A person perceives something that provokes anxiety. The person tries to reduce the
anxiety by seeking physical or psychological closeness to her or his partner. The partner
responds positively to the request for closeness, which reaffirms a sense of security and
reduces anxiety. The person returns to her or his everyday activities.

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

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

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

Mikulincer, Shaver, and Pereg contend these strategies of regulating attachment anxiety
have very different consequences. [54] The security based strategy leads to more positive
thoughts, such as more positive explanations of why others behave in a particular way
and more positive memories about people and events. More positive thoughts can
encourage more creative responses to difficult problems or distressing situations. The
attachment avoidance and hyperactivation strategies lead to more negative thoughts and
less creativity in handling problems and stressful situations. From this perspective, it
would benefit people to adopt security based strategies for dealing with anxiety.

Support

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

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

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

Intimacy

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

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

The desire for intimacy has biological roots and, in the great majority of people, persists
from birth until death. The desire for intimacy also has important implications for
attachment. Relationships that frequently satisfy the desire for intimacy lead to more
secure attachments between partners. Relationships that rarely satisfy the desire for
intimacy lead to less secure attachments between partners.
Collins and Freeney have examined the relationship between attachment and intimacy in
detail. [61] They define intimacy as a special set of interactions in which a person discloses
something important about himself or herself, and a partner responds to the disclosure in
a way that makes the person feel validated, understood, and cared for. These interactions
usually involve verbal self-disclosure. But intimate interactions can also involve non-
verbal forms of self-expression such as touching, hugging, kissing, and sexual behavior.
From this perspective, intimacy requires the following:

• willingness to disclose one's true thoughts, feelings, wishes, and fears

• willingness to rely on a partner for care and emotional support
• willingness to engage in physical intimacy

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

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

Jealousy

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

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

"In most young children the mere sight of mother holding another baby in her arms is enough to
elicit strong attachment behaviour. The older child insists on remaining close to his mother, or on
climbing on to her lap. Often he behaves as though he were a baby. It is possible that this well-
known behaviour is only a special case of a child reacting to mother's lack of attention and lack of
responsiveness to him. The fact, however, that an older child often reacts in this way even when
his mother makes a point of being attentive and responsive suggests that more is involved; and
the pioneer experiments of Levy (1937) also indicate that the mere presence of a baby on
mother's lap is sufficient to make an older child much more clinging." (Bowlby, 1969/1982, page
260) [53]

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

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

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

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

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

Adult Treatment Based on Attachment Theory

There are several attachment-based treatment approaches that can be used with adults.[71]
In addition, there is an approach to treating couples based on attachment theory. [72]
1. ^ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
2. ^ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment theoretical
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270-280.
3. ^ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for
research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.
4. ^ Fraley, R.C. & Shaver, P.R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical
developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General
Psychology, 4, 132-154.
5. ^ Rholes, W.S. & Simpson, J.A. (2004). Attachment theory: Basic concepts and
contemporary questions. In W.S. Rholes and J.A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult Attachment:
Theory, Research, and Clinical Implications, pp. 3-14. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
6. ^ Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults:
A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-
244.
7. ^ Pietromonaco, P.R. & Barrett, L.F. (1997). Working Models of Attachment and Daily
Social Interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1409-1423.
8. ^ Bowlby, J. (1973). Separation: Anxiety & Anger, Volume 2 of Attachment and loss
London: Hogarth Press; New York: Basic Books; Harmondsworth: Penguin (1975).
9. ^ Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A
test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.
10. ^ a b Baldwin, M.W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461-484.
11. ^ Baldwin, M.W. (1997). Relational schemas as a source of if-then self-inference
procedures. Review of General Psychology, 1, 326-335.
12. ^ Baldwin, M.W., Fehr, B., Keedian, E., Seidel, M., & Thompson, D.W. (1993). An
exploration of the relational schemata underlying attachment styles: self-report and
lexical decision approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 746-754.
13. ^ a b Baldwin, M.W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the Instability of Attachment Style Ratings.
Personal Relationships, 2, 247- 261.
14. ^ a b Baldwin, M.W., Keelan, J.P.R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996).
Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and
accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 94-109.
15. ^ Baldwin, M.W., & Meunier, J. (1999). The Cued Activation of Attachment Relational
Schemas. Social Cognition, 17, 209-227.
16. ^ Bowlby, J. (1980) Loss: Sadness & Depression, in Vol. 3 of Attachment and loss,
London: Hogarth Press. New York: Basic Books; Harmondsworth: Penguin (1981).
17. ^ Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209).
18. ^ Bretherton, I. (1990). Open communication and internal working models: Their role in
the development of attachment relationships. In R. A. Thompson (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 36, 57-113. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
19. ^ Collins, N., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of attachment: The
structure and function of working models. In D. Perlman & K. Bartholomew (Eds.),
Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 53-90). London: Jessica Kingsley.
20. ^ Main, M., Kaplan, K., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and
adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209).
21. ^ Pietromonaco, P.R., & Barrett, L.F. (2000). The internal working models concept:
What do we really know about the self in relation to others? Review of General
Psychology, 4, 155-175.
22. ^ Trinke, S.J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in
young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603-625.
23. ^ La Guardia, J.G., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Within-person
variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on
attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79, 367-384.
24. ^ Overall, N.C., Fletcher, G.J.O., & Friesen, M.D. (2003). Mapping the intimate
relationship mind: Comparisons between three models of attachment representations.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1479-1493.
25. ^ a b Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000).
Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study.
Child Development, 71, 684-689.
26. ^ Kirkpatrick, L., & Hazen, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four
year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123-142.
27. ^ Feeney, J., & Noller, P. (1992). Attachment style and romantic love: Relationship
dissolution. Australian Journal of Psychology, 44, 69-74.
28. ^ Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment
patterns. Personal Relationships, 1, 23-43.
29. ^ Waters, E., Weinfield, N.S., & Hamilton, C.E. (2000). The stability of attachment
styles from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General discussion. Child
Development, 71, 703-706.
30. ^ Hamilton, C.E. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy
through adolescence. Child Development, 71, 690-694.
31. ^ Weinfield, N.S., Sroufe, L.A., & Egelund, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early
adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Child
Development, 71, 695-702.
32. ^ Davila, J., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Attachment change processes in
the early years of marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 783-802.
33. ^ Brennan, K.A., & Shaver, P.R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect
regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 267–283.
34. ^ a b Feeney, J.A. (1994). Attachment style, communication patterns and satisfaction
across the life cycle of marriage. Personal Relationships, 1, 333–348.
35. ^ Feeney, J. A. (1996). Attachment, caregiving, and marital satisfaction. Personal
Relationships, 3, 401–416.
36. ^ Feeney, J.A., Noller, P., & Callan, V.J. (1994). Attachment style, communication and
satisfaction in the early years of marriage. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.),
Advances in personal relationships: Attachment processes in adulthood (Vol. 5, pp. 269–
308). London: Jessica Kingsley.
37. ^ Fuller, T.L., & Fincham, F.D. (1995). Attachment style in married couples: Relation to
current marital functioning, stability over time, and method of assessment. Personal
Relationships, 2, 17–34.
38. ^ a b Lussier, Y., Sabourin, S., & Turgeon, C. (1997). Coping strategies as moderators of
the relationship between attachment and marital adjustment. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 14, 777–791.
39. ^ a b Meyers, S.A., & Landsberger, S.A. (2002). Direct and indirect pathways between
adult attachment style and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 9, 159–172.
40. ^ Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models and relationship
quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
41. ^ Senchak, M., & Leonard, K.E. (1992). Attachment styles and marital adjustment
among newlywed couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 51-64.
42. ^ Keelan, J.P.R., Dion, K.K., & Dion, K.L. (1998). Attachment style and relationship
satisfaction: Test of a self-disclosure explanation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 30, 24–35.
43. ^ Feeney, J.A. (1999). Adult attachment, emotional control, and marital satisfaction.
Personal Relationships, 6, 169–185.
44. ^ Davila, J., Bradbury, T.N., & Fincham, F. (1998). Negative affectivity as a mediator of
the association between adult attachment and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships,
5, 467-484.
45. ^ Cobb, R.J., Davila, J., & Bradbury, T.N. (2001). Attachment security and marital
satisfaction: The role of positive perceptions and social support. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1131-1143.
46. ^ Simpson, J.A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971-980.
47. ^ Duemmler, S.L., & Kobak, R. (2001). The development of commitment and attachment
in dating relationships: attachment security as relationship construct. Journal of
Adolescence, 24, 401-415.
48. ^ Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Davis, K.E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship
stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 502-
512.
49. ^ Davila, J., & Bradbury, T.N. (2001). Attachment insecurity and the distinction between
unhappy spouses who do and do not divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 371-393.
50. ^ Rholes, W.S., Simpson, J.A., & Stevens, J.G. (1998). Attachment orientations, social
support, and conflict resolution in close relationships. In W.S. Rholes & J.A. Simpson
(Eds.), Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (pp.166-188). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
51. ^ Anders, S.L., & Tucker, J.S. (2000). Adult attachment style, interpersonal
communication competence, and social support. Personal Relationships, 7, 379-389.
52. ^ Feeney, J.A. & Noller, P. (2004). Attachment and sexuality in close relationships. In
J.H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, and S. Sprecher (Eds.), The Handbook of Sexuality in Close
Relationships. (pp. 183-201) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
53. ^ a b Bowlby, J. (1969/1982) Attachment, Vol. 1 of Attachment and loss. London:
Hogarth Press. New York: Basic Books (1982).
54. ^ a b Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P.R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect
regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-
related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77-102.
55. ^ Kobak, R.R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models,
affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146.
56. ^ Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies,
and post-traumatic psychological distress: The impact of the Gulf War in Israel. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 817-826.
57. ^ Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W.S., & Nelligan, J.S. (1992). Support seeking and support
giving within couples in an anxiety provoking situation: The role of attachment styles".
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434-446.
58. ^ Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Bucholtz, I. (1995). Effects of adult attachment style on
the perception and search for social support. Journal of Psychology, 129, 665-676.
59. ^ Asendorpf, J.B., & Wilpers, S. (2000). Attachment security and available support:
Closely linked relationship qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17,
115-138.
60. ^ Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.
61. ^ Collins, N.L. & Freeney, B.C. (2004). An Attachment Theory Perspective on Closeness
and Intimacy. In D.J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy,
pp. 163-188. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
62. ^ Mashek, D.J., & Sherman, M.D. (2004). Desiring less closeness with initimate others.
In A. Aron and Mashek, D.J. (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy (pp. 343-356).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. ^ Volling, B.L., McElwain, N.L., & Miller, A.L. (2002). Emotion regulation in context:
The jealousy complex between young siblings and its relations with child and family
characteristics. Child Development, 73, 581-600.
64. ^ Hart, S. (2002). Jealousy in 6-month-old infants. Infancy, 3, 395-402.
65. ^ Hart, S. (2004). When infants lose exclusive maternal attention: Is it jealousy? Infancy,
6, 57-78.
66. ^ Harris, C.R. (2004). The evolution of jealousy. American Scientist, 92, 62-71.
67. ^ a b c Sharpsteen, D.J., & Kirkpatrick, L.A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic
attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 627-640.
68. ^ Buunk, B.P. (1997).Personality, birth order and attachment styles as related to various
types of jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 997-1006.
69. ^ a b Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience and
expression of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5, 273-291.
70. ^ Radecki-Bush, C., Farrell, A.D., & Bush, J.I. (1993). Predicting jealous responses: The
influence of adult attachment and depression on threat appraisal. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 10, 569-588.
71. ^ Sable, P., (2000). Attachment & Adult Psychotherapy. Northvale NJ: Aaronson.
72. ^ Johnson, S., (2002). Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy with Trauma Survivors.
NY: Guilford.

• Andersson, P. (2006) Determinants of Individual Vulnerability to Heroin

Addiction – A Psychosocial Study. The Doctoral thesis, Åbo Akademi University.
ISBN 952-12-1677-8.
• Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P., (Eds). (1999) Handbook of Attachment: Theory,
Research, and Clinical Applications. Guilford Press, NY.
• Greenberg, MT, Cicchetti, D., & Cummings, EM., (Eds) (1990) Attachment in the
Preschool Years: Theory, Research and Intervention University of Chicago,
Chicago.
• Greenspan, S. (1993) Infancy and Early Childhood. Madison, CT: International
Universities Press. ISBN 0-8236-2633-4.
• Holmes, J. (1993) John Bowlby and Attachment Theory. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-
07730-3.
• Holmes, J. (2001) The Search for the Secure Base: Attachment Theory and
Psychotherapy. London: Brunner-Routledge. ISBN 1-58391-152-9.
• Karen R (1998) Becoming Attached: First Relationships and How They Shape
Our Capacity to Love. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-511501-5.
 • Parkes, CM, Stevenson-Hinde, J., Marris, P., (Eds.) (1991) Attachment Across
The Life Cycle Routledge. NY. ISBN 0-415-05651-9
• Siegler R., DeLoache, J. & Eisenberg, N. (2003) How Children develop. New
York: Worth. ISBN 1-57259-249-4.

Confusing, frightening and isolating emotional experiences early in life create

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

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

Insecure attachment and attachment disorders

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

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

Avoidant attachment

When a parent is emotionally unavailable or rejecting, a child may become “avoidantly”

attached, meaning that the child adapts by avoiding closeness and emotional connection.
This child may appear to be very independent but their self reliance is a cover for
insecurity.

Ambivalent attachment

An “ambivalently” attached child experiences the parents’ communication as

inconsistent and at times intrusive. Because the child can’t depend on the parent for
attunement and connection, he develops a sense of anxiety and feelings of insecurity.
Disorganized attachment

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

Causes of Attachment Disorders

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

• neglect, including emotional neglect

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

Signs and symptoms of attachment disorders

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

Symptoms of insecure attachment

Emotional low self-esteem; needy, clingy or pseudo-independent behavior; inability to
Problems deal with stress and adversity; depression; apathy
Physical susceptibility to chronic illness; obsession with food - hordes, gorges,
problems refuses to eat, eats strange things, hides food
Social lack of self-control; inability to develop and maintain friendships; alienation
Problems from parents, caregivers, and other authority figures; aggression and
violence; difficulty with genuine trust, intimacy, and affection; lack of
empathy, compassion and remorse; negative, hopeless, pessimistic view of
self, family and society
Symptoms of insecure attachment
Learning behavioral problems at school; speech and language problems; incessant
problems chatter and questions; difficulty learning

Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD)

Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) is a clinically recognized form of severe insecure
attachment. Children with RAD are so neurologically disrupted that they cannot attach to
a primary caregiver or go through the normal developmental processes. These children
cannot establish positive relationships with other people. Many of these children may
have been incorrectly diagnosed as having severe emotional and behavioral disturbances
ranging from bipolar disorder to depression. In response to these diagnoses, they may
have received various combinations of unnecessary psychotropic mediation.

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

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

Repairing attachment disorders

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

Attachment is an interactive process.

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

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

• Visual – eye contact; facial expression; posture ; gesture body movement

• Auditory – tone of voice; speech rhythm and rate; timing, intensity and voice
modulation

Children vary in what they find soothing

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

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

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

Shared emotional experiences should be truly shared.

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

Positive emotional experiences are as important to share as negative

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

Some parents are very good at detecting a child’s distress and responding appropriately to
it. Other parents share joyous moments but leave or space out in times of trouble and
unhappiness. A strong attachment bond includes the full range of shared emotional
experience—including joy.
Conflict and repair is a crucial part of secure
attachment.
No matter how much we love our children, there comes a point where we are not in
agreement with them, a point when we have to set limits, and say “no.” This conflict
temporally ruptures the relationship as the child angrily protests. Such protest is to be
expected. The key to strengthening the attachment bond of trust is to be available the
minute the child is ready to reconnect. It is also important to initiate repair when we have
done something to hurt, disrespect, or shame a child. Parents aren’t perfect. From time to
time, we are the cause of the disconnection. Again, our willingness to initiate repair can
strengthen the attachment bond.

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

Bonding

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

Parenting, the brain, and attachment

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

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

• The brain at birth is the least completed organ in the body – and remains so
for from three to five years
• The brain is capable growth throughout life –adding new cells as well as new
connections to other cells.
• Brain development is determined by experience before and after birth –
genetic factors are no more influential than experience.
 • The brain seeks relationships –throughout life, and especially in infancy,
relationships grab and hold the attention of the brain.
• The most profound experiences in infancy occur in relationship with one
primary caretaker – beginning in the last trimester of pregnancy and lasting for
at least two-and-a-half to three years of age.

Parenting and secure attachment

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

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

Relationships characterized by secure attachment have the following

attributes:

• The adult aligns his/her own internal state with that of the infant or child and
communicates this alignment in non-verbal ways that the child understands. This
“communication” forms a bond of trust that makes the infant feel that he/she is
felt, known and respected. For example:
• The child cries; the adult feels concern and acts in ways that communicate this
concern.
• The infant smiles and wants to interact in a positive manner. Seeing this, the adult
understands and accommodates the infant’s desire for joyful play.
• Through this mutually attuned interaction, the infant learns to attain balance in his
body, emotions, and states of mind.
• The comfort, pleasure, and mutuality of the attuned interaction create a sense of
safety within the infant and inspire interpersonal connection to others

“Attachment parenting” and relationship bonding

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

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

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

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

Attachment bonding and parenting styles predict the

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

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

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

Parenting need not be perfect for secure attachment

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

Repair, an important part of the attachment process, contributes as much to optimum

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

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

Parenting skills that promote secure attachment

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

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

• Affectional bond • Attachment parenting • Jean Piaget

• Maternal deprivation
• Family therapy
• Human bonding
• Object relations
theory
• Primal integration
• Reactive attachment
disorder
• Attachment in adults • Jerome Kagan
• Attachment in children • John Bowlby
• Attachment measures • Mary Ainsworth
• Attachment disorder • Melanie Klein
• Reactive attachment • Professor Sir
disorder Michael Rutter
• Attachment therapy • Rene Spitz
• Emotionally Focused • Harry Harlow
Therapy