See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319591008

Attachment Theory

Chapter · January 2010

DOI: 10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0094

CITATIONS READS
0 2,675

1 author:

Carol George
Mills College
102 PUBLICATIONS 6,961 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Carol George on 09 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: Attachment theory

Attachment Theory

Carol George

Mills College

Oakland, CA

Key words: attachment, defense, adults, children, development

 Attachment Theory

Attachment theory defines an evolutionary-based relationship between a child and a

parent figure. Attachment is a biologically-based behavioral system that evolved in ways that

influence and organize human motivational, emotional, and cognitive and memory processes.

The relationship is conceived to develop initially in infancy and contribute to development, other

relationships, risk, and mental health throughout the life span (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980;

Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). Attachment has become a shorthand term that connotes a complex set

of interrelated patterns of behavior and thinking directed toward a parent figure that is wiser,

protective, and caring. Attachment is distinguished from other social relationships by the

following constellation of behavior and processes: (1) proximity seeking; (2) distress when

separation is not understandable; (3) happiness at reunion; (4) grief/sadness at loss; (5) secure

base behavior – capacity to explore when attachment figure is present (Ainsworth, 1989); (6)

attachment figure viewed as having an enduring commitment to being available when needed

(Kobak, Cassidy, & Ziv, 2004). Children develop preferred attachment relationships with parents

and other caring adults (e.g., foster parents, daycare providers). Attachment contributes to the

development of an integrated self, confidence in self and others, and the ability to endure life’s

challenges and stressors (George & West, in press; Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005).

Attachment behavior is adaptive – from an evolutionary perspective and a proximate,

immediate care perspective. It keeps children close to and cared for by attachment figures, thus,

improving the chances of survival and parent reproductive fitness. Attachment behavior is

guided by a neurologically-based mental representational system that has specific biological

substrates and influences physiological homeostasis (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). When the

attachment system is activated (perceived stress or threat), individuals desire physical or

psychological proximity or tact with attachment figures (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973). Internal

cues (e.g., illness, fatigue, hunger, pain) and external cues activate attachment. Some are

universal to humans through evolution, (e.g., peripheral movement; separation from attachment

figures) and others are learned.

Childhood Attachment Patterns

The quality of the child’s attachment reflects real experience with the parent. Attachment

patterns, also termed “status” (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), are influenced but not

determined by temperament, genetics, parents’ marital satisfaction, and culture. Attachment is

dyad-specific; quality of attachment with one parent is independent from other attachment

relationships. There are four major patterns of child attachment, originally identified in infants

and later extended to older children. Three patterns are conceived as organized forms of

attachment (secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-ambivalent-resistant -- Ainsworth et al., 1978);

the fourth is disorganized-controlling -- Main & Cassidy, 1988; Main & Solomon, 1990). Several

decades of research provide a lens for understanding these groups, including cross-cultural

naturalistic and laboratory studies (e.g., Strange Situation, Attachment Q-sort) and studies of

attachment and caregiving representations (e.g., Attachment Doll Play, Separation Anxiety Test,

interview) (Solomon & George, in press).

Children with organized attachments signal need and get close to their parents when they

experience attachment distress. Secure children signal promptly and clearly, and prefer care by

their parents above all others. They are confident that their parents are accessible, sensitive,

responsive, and follow through promptly and completely. Their parents view them as deserving
care. They work hard to juggle their own needs with their children’s in a developmentally and

contextually appropriate manner. The secure relationship is balanced, mutually satisfying and

comfortable, and characterized by emotional sharing and the co-construction of plans and

activities. The secure attachment relationship is conceived as a “goal-corrected partnership”

(Bowlby, 1969/1982).

Children develop insecure attachments when parental accessibility and sensitivity are

compromised. Insecure children are anxious and use defensive processes to manage distress

(e.g., exclusion, transformation of attachment experience and affect) so as to achieve at least

minimal parental care. Insecure-avoidant children maintain an independent façade. Defensive

deactivation, the goal of which is to cool down distress, is their primary form of defense.

Deactivation is not always 100% effective and distress does leak through, for example in the

form of strong separation anxiety when separated from parents. Their parents contribute to

attachment distance with mild rejection and behavior that shifts children’s attention away from

attachment. A goal-corrected balance is compromised by mutual emphasis away from comfort

and intimacy to exploration, achievement and activity. Insecure-ambivalent-resistant children are

overtly anxious, immature and clingy. Their primary form of defense, cognitive disconnection,

separates attachment affect from its source. As a result, attachment signals are unclear,

contradictory (e.g., desire to be picked up and immediately put down), and often intense (to

remind parents to keep them close by). Anger wells up in these children because their parents

are inconsistently responsive. Parental actions are often not related to their children’s needs.

These parents are uncertain about what their children need and are distracted by worry,

frustration, and guilt. A goal-corrected balance is compromised by a mutual emphasis on

intimacy and over-involvement over autonomy.

 Insecure-disorganized children are the most anxious children in the attachment nosology.

They are called disorganized because organized attachment behavioral and defensive processes

literally break down leaving these children defenseless and overwhelmed. Disorganized infants

appear disoriented (e.g., trance-like state), frightened (e.g., freezing, apprehensive), conflicted

about proximity (e.g., approach with head uncomfortably averted), and hostile (e.g., aggression

without apparent cause). Typically by age six, children develop controlling strategies that directs

the parents’ attention and behavior such that children assume a role that is usually considered

appropriate for a parent. Controlling children can be punitive (e.g., rude, vindictive) or

caregiving (overly solicitous). The roles of child and parent are inverted and disorganized-

controlling relationships are completely out of balance.

Studies investigating parental contributions to disorganized-controlling attachment

emphasize a range of processes and experiences carried from the parent’s past or in the current

relationship that include (1) extreme parental psychological or physical withdrawal and

“invisibility” (e.g., dissociative behavior); (2) unresolved, contradictory or unpredictable

frightening experiences (e.g., rage, hostile-intrusive interaction), sometimes associated with

certain forms of psychopathology (e.g., anxiety disorder, borderline personality disorder,

depression), abuse, alcoholism, or parental conflict; (3) helplessness; (4) child

empowerment/deference (e.g., glorification – child viewed as more capable of caring for others

than the parent); and (5) dissolution of parent-child boundaries (parent merged with child, acts

like a child, treats child like a spouse). The single underlying thread in this list is the fear

generated by feelings of helplessness and isolation in both the parent and the child.

Disorganized-controlling children become so overwhelmed by their parents’ inaccessibility

organized attachment strategies are disrupted or blocked. Their parents are inaccessible and
helpless to provide care and protection in those exact moments children them the most. They are

essentially alone and defenseless in a world that is dangerous and out of control (George &

Solomon, 2008).

Attachment theory suggests that attachments should become increasingly stable and

resistant to change during the early childhood (infant – age 5) as relationships become

internalized through the development of representational skills. Continuity and discontinuity is

lawfully connected to experiences with their parents; changes in attachment status occur when

there are significant changes in parental sensitivity and responsiveness due to life events that can

stabilize (e.g., infant mental health intervention) or threaten attachment security (e.g., loss of a

parent).

Secure attachment is the most common attachment for children around the world. The

predominant forms of insecure attachment vary and are influenced by the degree to families and

cultures emphasize closeness. Avoidant insecurity is more predominant in groups that value

independence; ambivalent-resistant insecurity is more predominant in groups that value

closeness and enmeshment. The proportion of disorganized-controlling attachment ranges from

13% to 90%, depending on the family risk factors present (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008).

Attachment status contributes to and serves as a buffer or risk factor for social, cognitive,

and emotional development including, autonomy, confidence, self-esteem, emotion regulation

and stress, problem solving, abstract reasoning, mastery, ego resilience, sociability, peer and

leadership skills, and the development of conscience. Security with father contributes to play and

exploratory competence. Disorganized-controlling attachment is associated with developmental

risk, including internalizing and externalizing problems; peer aggression; defiance; coercion,

poor academic- and self-esteem, social competence, and math and deductive reasoning skills;
and fantasies of helplessness, destruction and death. Disorganized attachment in infancy

disorganization predicts dissociative symptoms and high psychopathology ratings in

adolescence.

Adolescent and Adult Attachment Patterns

The goal of attachment – proximity to attachment figures when distressed – is the same

for adolescents and adults as for children. There are also important differences. The range of

activating conditions, response intensities and need for physical proximity to attachment figures

decrease. Attachment relationships extend to peers and spouse/partner in addition to parents

(Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; West & Sheldon-Keller, 1994).

Adult attachment status is conceived in terms of representation or “state of mind,” one’s

current perspective of past attachment experiences. Adult attachment status is assessed using

representational measures and reflects one’s qualitative synthesis of memories and affects of past

attachment experiences and emotions in light of current expectations and evaluations (e.g., Adult

Attachment Interview; Adult Attachment Projective Picture System). Attachment status in

adolescents and adults may differ from one’s actual childhood patterns. Metacognitive and

abstract thought that emerge beginning in adolescence can provide a lens of understanding that is

not possible in childhood that can re-organize or disrupt childhood patterns.

There are four main adult attachment groups – three organized (secure/flexibly integrated,

dismissing, preoccupied) and unresolved. Adult attachment status is a generalized representation

of attachment experience. It should not be confused with attachment style, a social-cognitive

model of personality (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008).

Adults with organized attachment status use a range of strategies to manage feelings of

need, closeness and intimacy, assuage attachment distress and maintain psychologically
closeness to attachment figures. Secure adults are flexibly integrated in thought and action. They

fluidly reconsider and re-evaluate attachment from new perspectives as an ongoing process in

their lives. Secure adults value attachment figures as available and accessible to provide comfort

when needed. They have internalized resources that promote constructive problem solving,

integrity, and connectedness in relationships (“internalized secure base” - George & West, in

press).

Insecure-organized adults want closeness, but past and current attachment anxiety

interferes with their ability to use personal and attachment resources to assuage distress. They

manage anxiety with defensive processes that shift attention and behavior away from making

bids to attachment figures they know will be ineffective and disappointing. Dismissing

attachment, analogous to avoidant child attachment, is maintained by deactivating strategies that

mute mistrust, distress and anger. Individual appear cool, neutralized and detached. Attachment

relationships are viewed as instrumental in that they can provide basic care without intimacy or

dependence. Representations of self and others emphasize personal strength, rules, achievement,

intellect, problem solving capabilities, and strict adherence to social scripts – all characteristics

that protect the self from feeling rejected. Preoccupied attachment, analogous to ambivalent-

resistant child attachment, is maintained by disconnecting strategies that fosters closeness but

does not effectively manage accompanying feelings of anger and sadness. Preoccupied

individuals are confused about how to think about self, attachment figures, and contexts.

Preoccupied individuals portray self and others as unable to solve problems, entangled, angry,

withdrawn, emotionally withholding, distracted, and over-involved.

Unresolved adult attachment is analogous to disorganized child attachment. The etiology

of unresolved attachment is trauma that is so painful and threatening those adults cannot
integrate experience and affects at the representational level. In essence, attachment trauma

becomes repressed or “segregated” (Bowlby, 1980). Segregated memories and feelings are

unleashed when attachment is activated, resulting in lapses in metacognitive monitoring and

dissociation (Hesse & Main, 2006). Unresolved individuals are overcome by attachment trauma

to the extent that flexible integration and organizing defenses break down; they are flooded and

dysregulated by fear and feelings of isolation, abandonment, and helplessness (George & West,

in press).

Attachment status in adolescence and adulthood is also lawfully related to attachment

experience. In adolescence, the transition to psychological and relationship autonomy may

account for a greater proportion of dismissing adolescents than avoidant children or adults in

many studies. Population statistics for attachment group prevalence depends on the populations

being studied (e.g., college students, parents, psychiatric patients). Proportions of security tend to

be smaller in adolescent and adult samples than in child samples (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008).

Adolescent and adult attachment status is associated with self and relationship

characteristics, including autonomy, reflective capacity, family/relationship interaction patterns

(communication, relatedness, conflict) and adjustment. Attachment status is related to emotion

regulation and stress responses (heart rate, skin conductance) and the interactions among cortical

(thinking, planning, regulation) and limbic system (autobiographical and emotional memory)

processes. Unresolved individuals are more likely to demonstrate dissociative tendencies, though

typically not at the level of mental health risk. Participants in clinical as compared with

community samples have higher rates of unresolved attachment, but unresolved attachment does

not in itself predict any particular DSM diagnosis.

 Attachment theory predicts inter-relationship transmission of attachment to other intimate

social relationships based on the template developed in childhood, including friendship, dating,

partner selection and parenting. Inter-relationship transmission is robust for secure adults, but

equivocal for insecure adults. Past attachment experience in childhood serves as an important

foundation for other relationships however current experience in new relationships has the

potential to change appraisals of the past.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachment beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709-716.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A

psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2 Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3 Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and

clinical application (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

George, C., & Solomon, J. (2008). The caregiving system: A behavioral systems approach to

parenting. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,

research, and clinical application (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

George, C., & West, M. (in press). The Adult Attachment Projective Picture System: A new

assessment of adult attachment. New York: Guilford Press.

Hesse, E., & Main, M. (2006). Frightened, threatening, and dissociative parental behavior in

low-risk samples: Description, discussion, and interpretations. Development and

Psychopathology, 18, 309-343.

Kobak, R., Cassidy, J., & Ziv, Y. (2004). Attachment-related trauma and posttraumatic stress

disorder: Implications for adult adaptation. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult

attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implication. (pp. 388-407). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6:

Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period.

Developmental Psychology, 24, 1-12.

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/ disoriented

during the Ainsworth strange situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti & E. M.

Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years (pp. 121-160). Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Solomon, J., & George, C. (Eds.). (in press). Disorganized attachment and caregiving. New

York: Guilford Press.

Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, A. W. (2005). The development of the

person. New York: Guilford Press.

West, M., & Sheldon-Keller, A. E. (1994). Patterns of relating: An adult attachment perspective.

New York: Guilford Press.

 [First Authors Last Name] Page 12

1 Recommended reading:

2 1. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and

3 clinical application (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

4 2. Solomon, J., & George, C. (Eds.). (in press). Disorganized attachment and caregiving. New

5 York: Guilford Press.

6 3. Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, A. W. (2005). The development of the

7 person. New York: Guilford Press.

View publication stats