Definition of Attachment and the Origins of a Theory - Essay Example

Running head: Psychological aspects of attachment Psychological Aspects of Attachment: Reconsideration of Mary Ainsworth's Theory PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF ATTACHMENT: RECONSIDERATION OF MARY AINSWORTH'S THEORY Definition of attachment and the origins of a theory Attachment is one of the pivotal psychological phenomena, which is commonly identified as a tendency to seek closeness to another person and feel secure when that person is present (Steinberg, 1999). Another definition fo attachment, observing Fraley and Shafer (2000) is an "emotional bond with a specific person that is enduring across time and space". In contrast to bonding which is a short-term and one-sided process, attachment is a mutual and reciprocal process where both parties are active. Attachment is a relationship that starts during first months of infant's life and then accomanies all his/her life. The first ideas of attachment obviously go back to early psychoanalysis, and particularly to Freudian ideas of personality development. Freud was the first to understand that children are atatched to their parents not because they provide them food, but rather due to deeper psychological reasons, such as the need of belongness, security and care (Fadiman and Frager, 2001). Freud supposed that child's attachment is generally developed by means of libidinal drives fixed on different objects. In case the attachment is broken, unrealized libidinal drives constitute mental traumas often leading to later mental illness. Later psychanalitycal views were significantly reconsidered by E. Erikson who defined the stages of child's development in ontogenesis (Fadiman and Frager, 2001). The Freudian concept of attachment was further siginficantly reconsidered in 1940s-1950s. British psychologist John Bowlby was the first empiricists who developed the complex attachment theory designed originally to characterize infant-parent emotional bonding (Shaver, 2002). Bowlby challanged Anna Freud's idea that bereaved infants mourn may be explained by their insufficient ego development. The J. Bowlby's (1982; 1988) attachment model relies on ethological theory (1), focuses on the innate base of attachment (2) and looks at the quality of attachments with caregivers (3). J.Bowlby's (1982; 1988) orginal attempt was to understand the severe distress experienced by infants separated from their parents in a result of World War II. Bowlby and his associate J.Robertson working in Anna Freud's Hampstead residential hospital found out that separated infants usually behave differently from the unseparated children. They, for instance used to cry, cling, or search for other people for extremely long periods of time. Bowlby and Robertson (1952) explained thios behavior as the attempt of children to either prevent separation from their parents or to reestablish paliative proximity to a parent who is missed. Traditionally, these manifestations of behavior were explained as defense machanisms targeted to repress emotional pain of separated children. Bowlby, however, suggested that this behavior (which is actually common to a wide range of mammalians) serves an evolutory function: looking for an adult person who is able toprovide necessary care and support. Observing J. Bowlby (1982; 1988), a motivational-control system or, as he named it "attachment behavioral system" was developed evlutionally by natural selection to regulate young species survival through achieving proximity to "older and wiser" individuals. The atatchment-behavioral system, according to Bowlby, literally "asks" a child to answer the following key questions: is the potential attachment figure nearby accessible and attentive. If a child answers "yes" he/she feels loved, protected and confident and, hence, demonstrates it behaviorally: becomes sociable and gamesome. If, however, a child feels an attachment figure to be inaccessible and inattentive, he/she frustrates and exibits attachment behavior which may range from visualizing the environment to vocalizing (giving signals to the others). Bowlby and Robertson (1952) specified three types of responses in case of unrealised attachment: protest (related to separation anxiety), despair (related to grief and mourning), and denial or detachment (related to defence mechanisms, especially repression). This schema of the overall attachment process' scheme may be presented graphically (chart 1): Chart 1. John Bowlby's theiry of attachment (Fraley and Shafer, 2000) At the time, psychoanalytic writers held that these expressions were manifestations of immature defense mechanisms that were operating to repress emotional pain, but Bowlby noted that such expressions are common to a wide variety of mammalian species, and speculated that these behaviors may serve an evolutionary function. Bowlby also defined the stages of attachment development in infants. He supposed there are four of them: 1. Indiscriminate Social Responsiveness (1-2 months) 2. Discriminating Sociability (2-7 months) 3. Attachment (7 months - 3 years). At this stage object permanence is established. 4. Goal-directed Partnership (3 years and onwards). At this stage a child becomes able to consider parents' needs during the interactions. Bowlby's theiry of attachment served the basis of further experiments. Harlow's theory of attachment (Harlow and Harlow, 1965) based on experiments with infant momkeys has shown that the creatures deprived from their partnes further responded other monkeys with unprovoked aggression and "anti-social" behavior. Moreover, they also used to develop abnormal sexual responses and demonstrated wrong attitudes to their own progencies. Harlow (1969) supposed then that attachment is pivotal for furtehr social development of an animal or a person. Early social interactions and realization of the attachment need determine person's both further social attitudes and behavior. In fact, attachment theory introduced by Bowlber (1982; 1988) and developed by Harlow (1965) and other scholars was important not only due to its explanation of atatchment as a psychological process. Actually, it contributed a new udnerstanding of child ontogenetic development and, what's more, suggested that attachment is a fundamental psychological mechanism immanent to a person on all stages of its development. Contrasting Freudian belief in libidinal origin of atatchment, Bowlber sugegsted that growing children do not break their previous attachments. On the contrary, a person preserves his/her attachments during the whole life though becoming more active and sovereign within previously established attachments. Besides, observing Bowlber (1982; 1988), newly aquired attachments to not always require runiation of previous ones. Mary Ainsworth's attachment theory: brief outline and major concepts The original ideas of John Bowlby were expanded by his colleague at Anne Freud's hospital Mary Ainsworth. M. Ainsworth's "Ganda Project" and "Baltimore Project" (Ainsworth, 1969; 1977; 1978) studied the individual differences in infant-mother reactions, the issue that Bowlber considered too complex to study. M. Ainsworth (1969) defined the following major concepts of her attachment theory, i.e.: Attachment is a psychological mechanism which serves to reduce anxiety in infants Attachment is a reciprocal process that implies active role of both the mother/caregiver and a child Maternal sensitivity and responsiveness serve the core determinants of attachment realization. Several type of attachment may be subdivided on the basis of mothers/caregivers' attitudes to infants and learned children's behavior. Realization of attachment in infants: the types of attachment and their acquirement Discussing the realization of attachment in infants one first of all needs to trace this process since the earliest days of a child and, hence, identify the initial stage of this process, i.e.: bonding. Bonding is conventionally understood as the basic link of trust between a child and his/her caretaker/mother. Bonding is based on infant's repeated completions during the first six months o his/her living. It develops according to the following pattern (Chart 3): Chart 3. The first bonding style (Fonagy, 1999) Successful bonding always implies a trust as a basic mechanism of its realization on the first stage. The second stage of bonding forming usually starts between 10 and 12 months of child's development and is associated with acquirement of toddling skills. The pattern of this bonding on the second stage develops according to the following model (Chart 4): Chart 4. Development of bonding on the second stage (Fonagy, 1999) Interaction and feeling of shame starts playing pivotal role for realization of bonding on this stage. However, excessive shame may lead to deterioration of bonding and further, wrong style of attachment. The analyzed bonding cycles and stages form the necessary ground for attachment realization. The key role in realization of attachment is played by affection which may be defined as a specific relationship of a person dominated by affectionate. Attachment can be defined as a person-specific relationship that is dominated by affectionate feelings and interchanges. What is important about attachment is that it always implies emotional component and an interaction between a parent and child. According to M. Ainsworth, attachment should be first of all analyzed as a process which has specific stages. M. Ainsworth explanation of the attachment is conventionally known as "Strange Situation" experiments. This procedure was designed to monitor mother-infant relationships and rate the types of infant's attachment. In this experiment a child was playing in the room while caregivers and strangers (recreating the flow of the familiar and unfamiliar presence in most children's lives) were entering and leaving the room. Ainsworth defined the following types of infant's reaction (Chart 2): Episode Situation Attachment behavior 1 Caregiver/child enters the room None 2 Caregiver/child alone Caregiver as a secure base 3 Stranger enters Reaction to stranger 4 Child and stranger Separation distress 5 Caregiver returns/stranger leaves Stranger comfort 6 Child alone Reunion reaction 7 Stranger enters Stranger comfort 8 Caregiver returns Reunion reaction Chart 2. The types of infant's reaction on strangers and caregivers (Bretherton, 1992) On the analysis of "Strange Situation" experiments Ainsworth (1967) defined that infants actually react different ways on their mothers/caregivers and, hence, there might be differences in their attachment styles. M. Ainsworth subdivided and described three attachment styles, i.e.: secure attachment, anxious-ambivalent insecure attachment and anxious-avoidant insecure attachment. Later she added one more type called disorganized attachment. A child possessing secure attachment style (which is immanent to 65% of infants) behaves and communicates freely when a caregiver is present and is eager to explore in his/her presence. However, a child becomes visibly upset when a caregiver leaves and appears extremely glad upon caregivers' return. Mary Ainsworth believed that secure attachment is the most adaptive attachment style as it educates a child to cope with the problems in future according to parental/caregivers' models. Besides, in this case children appear most benefited as their mother learns to meet their needs in responsive and most appropriate manner. Secure attachment style develops in case a mother/caregiver is attentive and sensitive enough to infant's needs. In a result, a child becomes aware that a caregiver will always meet his/her needs and starts trusting her/him. The children possessing anxious-ambivalent insecure attachment style (25% of all infants) are anxious of exploration, are scared and restricted in presence of the strangers, even when a caregiver is also present. A child appears dramatically distressed while caregiver is absent though is ambivalent when she/he returns. On the other hand a child is looking forward to remain closer to the mother though, on the other hand, it often resists when a caregiver initiates attention. According to the researches of Ainsworth and her followers, this style develops from a mothering/caregiver style, particularly when child's needs are ignored too often or a mother/caregiver takes more care of herself than of a child. A child with an anxious-avoidant attachment style (10% of all infants) may either ignore or avoid a mother/caregiver manifesting little emotion both when he/she departs or returns. A child adopting this attachment style usually treats strangers the same way with the mother demonstrating usually the same range of emotions regardless the people in the room. At the same time, a child with this type of attachment does not tend to explore. According to Ainsworth's researches this style is a derivative from a mothering brushing aside style. In this case a child's needs usually remain unmet and a child eventually realizes than communication with a mother/caregiver are of "no practical sense". Eventually, children with the fourth disorganized attachment style (which is actually not a truly style as it lacks copying behavior and is not a strategy for dealing with the world) experience mothers/caregivers as both frightened and frightening. In this case a child is unable to develop own self-concept as it literally "looks into a mirror broken into thousands pieces". As a result of her correlations, Ainsworth came to conclusion that satisfying or rejecting experience of a child with a mother determines the style of attachment. Later studies (Waters, 1995) have also shown that infant's attachments could change from secure to insecure in case such events as bereavement, divorce and abuse occur to a child. Experiencing of attachment by an infant and primary caregiver The pivotal principle of M. Ainsworth's theory is the idea of attachment as a reciprocal process between an infant and a primary caregiver. It is important to identify how both parties experience attachment. As attachment as a process incorporates both intraindividual and socio-psychological variables it may be best explained in terms of social interaction theory. Realization of attachment clearly implies development of the model of self and the model of others by both a caregiver and a child (Bartholomew, 1990). The fundamental assumption in attachment research is that mother's sensitive and empathic responding to infant's needs is a major factor in realization of attachment. However, a number of mothers fail to adopt this type of responding. Bowlby (1940) believed that poor internalization of responding styles may originate from own childhood problems. Quite often it is determined by unformed self-concept and failure to acquire adequate role in interaction with a child (Lamb et al, 1984). Mother's experience during the process of attachment may be best described in terms of identification. Identification of child's needs and proper reacting on these needs determine experience of attachment by a caregiver as it is a caregiver/mother who is responsible for development of adequate attachment style in infants. As defined by M. Ainsworth, a primary caregiver may experience close identification with a child and respond readily to infants' demands (first style of attachment), adopt less identification with an infant and demonstrate inconsistency in caregiving (second style of attachment) or, eventually, fail to identify with the child in principle and respond to his/her demands improperly (third style of attachment). Experience of attachment is obviously even complex in child. During realization of attachment a child develops, what Ainsworth named "internal working model of attachment". This model incorporates representation of own self and the selves of the others, development of attitude to the others which later guide person's interactions with the others. Besides, experiencing of attachment on the early stages also determine specificities of children's motivational spheres, development of defense mechanisms, and sexuality, forming of ego and superego for which a mother serves a model (Bowlby, 1951, p. 51). Development of the complex of self and others in the process of attachment may be explained graphically (Chart 5): Chart 5. Experience of attachment and forming of models of self and others (Bartholomew, 1990) Wrong experience of attachment leads as M. Ainsworth believed (1969), to the wrong styles of attachment and further maladaptation to social interaction. What happens between the infant and the primary caregiver Observing M. Ainsworth, realization of attachment is determined by a number of variables of both intraindividual and social nature. These factors include caregiver and child's individual characteristics as well as a number of environmental and societal factors. However, the major factor leading to establishment of attachment is caregivers' sensitivity and eagerness to respond to infant's signals and demands. As far as attachment is a reciprocal process it implies development of mutual feelings in mother and child. J. Bowlby believed that "the infant and young child should experience a warm, intimate, and continuous relationship with his mother (or permanent mother substitute) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment" (Bowlby, 1951, p. 13). Recent papers also prove that mutual enjoyment is obviously the core feeling between mother and child. Another strong characteristic which arises in the process of attachment is close identification. In terms of E. Erickson, identification is a strong feeling of "sameness" between people. In terms of Ainsworth's theory of attachment identification characterizes "approximation" of mother and infant and their feeling of "sameness". However, in terms of poor attachment with a mother children quite often may develop indifferent or even unconscious hostile attitude to her. Speaking in terms of Freudian view of personality, attachment brings both mother and child the long-awaited feeling of satisfaction. While a mother satisfies child's basal needs, i.e.: nutrition and defense and brings him/her comfort, consolation and support, a child gives a caregiver what she needs, particularly affiliation, feeling of maternity, desired self-concept, etc. The relationships between a child and caregiver may be presented graphically (Chart6): Chart 6. Reciprocal process between mother and infant during attachment Attachment across the lifespan Already J. Bowlby, following the general psychoanalytical model of personality development, verbalized the idea that peculiarities of attachment styles may influence personality during the whole lifespan. M. Ainsworth proved this idea by formulating the concept of the models of self and others developed by an infant during attachment phase. Further surveys (Collins & Read, 1994) have shown that such models are usually stable across the lifespan. There is now increasing amount of evidences that adult relationships (e.g.: romantic or family relationships, partner selection, etc.) usually follow the same model as infant-caregiver relationships (Fraley & Shaver, 1998). In the study of Steel et al (1998) the correlation of .17 between original attachment style and its affect on person across the lifespan was identified. Acquirement of attachment style, as Ainsworth has shown, may influence person's interaction with the others, activity in social life, determine sexual relationships and, moreover, affect his/her thoughts, feelings, beliefs and desires. Recent longitudinal studies have demonstrated that attachment style may affect identity and self-esteem of a person, his/her attitude to stressful situation, social orientation, trust or mistrust to the others, intellectual potential of a person, developing relationships with the others, mastering own feelings, language development, etc. In the other words, the quality of initial attachment patters is dramatically significant for further development of personality (Fraley & Shaver, 1998). From two to six months an infant develops the feeling of sameness with a mother or caregiver. At this stage attachment plays the key role in development of infant's emotions and responding to outer stimuli. Later, usually between seven or months attachment reduces infant's anxiety. This period lasts until the year of two or three when attachment serves one f the most important factors in making of child's self-concept, attitudes to the others and building relationships with the other people. On this stage attachment determines person's key social characteristics, i.e.: communication skills and "me" concepts, speaking in terms of symbolic interactionism. Also the foundations for attachment are generally laid by the age of three attachment style still keeps on dominating forming child's personality and his/her social characteristics and attitudes. At the age of four the attachment styles start playing pivotal role in development of child's expectations and forming of adequate behavioral reactions. Original feelings of trust or, on the contrary, mistrust in caregiver determine attitudes to the others. At this age attachment also serves a basis for development of children's activity. At school age acquired attachment styles determine child's patterns of cooperation with peers and teachers, his/her eagerness to approach learning tasks, cope with difficulties, solve problems, etc. In the other words attachment contributes here with the development of social and emotional competency in children. Children with secure attachment style usually demonstrate more adequate self-concepts, are more prosocial, capable, active and less aggressive then their peers having experienced other styles of attachment (Shaver, 2002). Attachment theory also provides researches a working framework for the analysis of emotional reactions of a person; it may help assess such complex phenomena as love, loneliness, grief, aggression, etc. Originally developed self-concepts and concepts of the other determine people's interaction in the social world. In adolescents and adults attachment theory contributes to the analysis of partner selection. Securely attached people are generally more confident with their partners and look for the same quality in them. At the same time with the anxious ambivalent attachment style usually have difficulties in finding a partner because of their need of cling. They, actually, always worry if their partners love them at all. Avoidant attached people are uncomfortable being close to others. They not only experience difficulties in trusting other people but do not want to rely on and depend on the others (Fraley and Shaver, 2002). Eventually, people's styles of attachment further determine their own relationships to own child and, hence, cause either duplication of attachment style or selection of a brand different pattern. In older adults attachment also helps people to develop adequate attitude to aging. How is attachment related to or influences successful aging Generally speaking, adequate attachment makes people more competitive in the social world they live in. It also determines the quality of people's life making them either happy both with them and their social environment or dramatically unhappy with what happens. People with secure attachment style percept and enjoy life literally "better" than those who have experienced other attachment styles leading them to maladaptiveness and frustration. Reconsidering the theory of attachment in terms of Erickson's epigenetic model of personality's development one may conclude that attachment style determine successful aging of a person on each of the stages. Attachment helps people becoming more adaptive and dynamic, assists them responding properly through allowing them to be affectionate, caring, and accepting (Fraley and Shaver, 2002). As attachment determines the whole lifespan of a person and is involved in a number of psychological processes and phenomena it influences the quality of our lives, allowing us living either happy and satisfied people or stressed and frustrated humans with poor adaptation styles and wrong responding. The following chart assesses phenomenon and process of attachment, its realization and influence of personality across the lifespan (Chart 7): Chart 7. Realization of attachment in children and its affect on the lifespan References: 1. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969). Object relations, dependency and attachment: a theoretical review of the infant-mother relationship, Child Development, 40, 969-1025. 2. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1977). Social development in the first year of life: Maternal influences on infant-mother attachment. In J. M. Tanner (Ed.) Developments in Psychiatric Research, London: Tavistock. 3. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M C., Waters, E., and Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: Assessed in the strange situation and at home, Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 4. Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178. 5. Bolwby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss (2nd edition). London: Hogarth Pree; New York: Basic Books; 6. Bowlby, J. (1951) Maternal care and mental health. New York: Columbia University Press. 7. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. London: Routledge: 8. Bowlby, J., Robertson, J., & Rosenbluth, D. (1952) A two-year old goes to hospital. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 7, 82.94. 9. Bretherton, I. (1992). The Origins of Attachment Theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28, 759-775. 10. Collins N.L., and Read S.J. (1994). Representations of attachment: The structure and function of working models. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships, 5, 53-90. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 11. Fadiman, J. and Frager, R. (2001). Personality and Personal Growth (5th Edition), N.Y.: Prentice Hall 12. Fonagy, P. (1999). Transgenerational Consistencies of Attachment: A New Theory [online]. Retrieved October 23 from http://psychematters.com/papers/fonagy2.htm 13. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic study of adult attachment dynamics in separating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1198-1212. 14. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Self-Report Measures of Adult Attachment [online]. Retrieved October 23 from http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/rcfraley/measures/measures.html 15. Harlow, H. F. & Harlow, M. K. (1965). The Affectional Systems. In H. F. Harlow, A. M. Schrier & F. Stollnitz (Eds.), Behavior of Nonhuman Primates: Modern Research Trends, 2 287-334. New York, NY: Academic Press Inc. 16. Shaver, P. (2002). The Psychodynamics of the Attachment System - New Theoretical Ideas and Empirical Findings [online]. Retrieved October 23 from http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/peleg/publications/publications/trauma/trauma_shaver.pdf 17. Steinberg, L. (1999). Adolescence (5th Edition). McGraw-Hill. Read More