By Ethan H. Freedman
December 15, 2022
PSYC 300: Topics: SOC/DEV/PERSON/CLIN
Professor Rachel Dinero
Acknowledgements:
I would like to acknowledge first off that much of the resources I have been using as well as the facilities that I have benefited from are located at Colgate University. Colgate University is situated on the Oneida Nation’s land, one of the nations of the Haudenosaunee people.
Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge my peers in PSYC 300 for all of their incredibly thoughtful ideas in class as well as outside that have contributed to my understanding of the subject. They inspired me to write better and differently at times. I also want to thank them for their wonderful comments in outside conversations. I would also like to thank Professor Rachel Dinero for their patience, wonderful feedback, and intriguing discussions. They inspired this work and helped to facilitate its outcome.
I would also like to acknowledge all those that have given me some sense of attachment. You are who made this essay possible.
Attachment Psychology: A Pivotal Foundation of Language for Orienting Relationships
In discourse, the word attachment creates a kind of visceral feeling for people as, simply put – it is different for everyone to an extent. Some people will explicitly share their relationship attachment styles while others refuse to to believe they have an attachment. Viscerality here is a metaphor for the notion that our own ideas of attachment elicits feelings in all of us whether they have to do with relationships of the past, present, or future. Anxiety, sadness, happinenes, and love in conjunction with another person, can all be cursors for the attachment system of an individual in any kind of relationship. In today’s society, there are many mediums to explain the attachment system. Whether it is someone on social media jauntily trying to sell a product with low evidence to back up their claim or your partner trying to dig themselves out of a hole their mouth got them into, there are explanations everywhere for how the human attachment system works.
While our visceral understanding can often be sufficient in explaining attachment, the reality is that some of the best explanations on the attachment system in humans stems from social psychological research of attachment, development, and clinical psychology. Beginning with Bowlby’s theory of Attachment presented in the late 1950’s and developing into a system capable of providing general explanations for different kinds of connections, attachment theory has come a very long way. In this essay, I will trace through pieces of the history of attachment theory as a method of consolidating the necessary information surrounding subcategories of the field. With this context, the survey on Attachment Styles and Close Relationships developed by Chris Fraley was used to measure my own attachment styles based on the general kinds of attachment that was ascertained by past research: general, maternal, paternal, romantic, platonic. Using my understanding of attachment constructed from a semester of PSYC 300: Topics in Attachment and analysis generated from the self reported measures, I assess my own attachment system and identify the correlates that are consistent and inconsistent with present research. While there are some limitations to attachment theory as it presents itself today, the fact of the matter is that understanding how one’s attachment system works can be pivotal in helping one generate healthier relationships of all kinds.
Introduction: Context of Attachment Research
Bowlby’s work on attachment kickstarted a revolution in academia as they created the foundation of attachment psychology. John Bowlby’s theory was a grasp at understanding the extreme discomfort experienced by infants, and was experimented on further by Mary Ainsworth in the “Strange Situation” (Fraley; 2018). Distress was indicated by infants crying, clinging, and looking for their parents as an attempt to prevent or eliminate the discomfort and attempt to reestablish proximity. Bowlby's work established a new field of psychology interested in attachment behaviors similar to crying and proximity maintenance as a response to separation from a primary attachment figure. The primary attachment figure is someone who provides care, protection and support as human infants are dependent on others in the first few years of life in order to survive (Fraley; 2018). Moreover, Ainsworth’s research most importantly created language to help describe attachment. Secure mother-infant attachment was represented by twelve year old infants when they became distressed by the caregivers exit from the room and easily eased upon return as they seek out the parent for comfort. Anxious or resistant attachment was characterized by children having a very difficult time being calm upon the return of their parents and are incredibly distressed during separation (Fraley; 2018). Children who have an anxious-resistant attachment to their primary caregivers often display behaviors that seem to represent a desire to punish the parent for leaving (Fraley; 2018). Lastly, avoidant attachment was defined by infants who were seemingly not stressed upon the separation from their parents and not eager to reunite upon return (Fraley; 2018). With this in mind, attachment research today is deeply rooted in the generalized language that Bowlby and Ainsworth established.
When we acknowledge Bowlby and Ainsworths’ work as the foundation to a super structure of research, the idea that attachment psychology can branch into many kinds of relationships is not too hard to comprehend. Researchers started to question whether or not attachment was an innate mechanism in human beings and mammals. Observations of mother-infant attachment and social relationships in Rhesus Monkeys yielded that monkeys have an extreme social network based on “kin” or family relations that were rather distinct and enduring (Suomi; 2005). While on monkeys and not humans, this research is rather significant as it suggests a lot about the human attachment system. Suomi goes to show that attachment systems may be general at times, but behaviors portrayed by Rhesus Monkeys indicate that certain behaviors also characterize different kinds of attachment depending on the physical and social context of a situation. It would not be surprising if humans also displayed something similar – if not, more complex.
Questions about what builds attachment in animals were raised by Nowak and Keller (2011) as they looked at maternal responsiveness and the development of attachment between a mother sheep and their young. They found that a rise in hormones shortly after birth induces maternal care by releasing oxytocin, a strong chemical related to attachment and relationship bonds. Overall, a more biological understanding of attachment was found as the olfactory network in a short period of time after birth is responsible for attachment bond growth in sheep and their lambs (Nowak and Keller; 2011). In other words, Nowak and Keller’s research revealed that the attachment system between mother-young sheep is dependent on the environment and their mothers capability of providing care shortly after birth. When this is unable to occur, the attachment between mother-young sheep could range from being slightly to significantly compromised. In asking questions about attachment in humans, Nowak and Levy’s work is exemplary of an attachment system between mother and infants. In a simpler form, this research showed that certain explicit behaviors are capable and necessary to build attachment, sparking a series of questions on attachment in infancy and childhood.
Research conducted by Kammermeir et al. (2019) assessed internal working models of attachment and how they affect the extent to which social and emotional information is processed. They did this by looking at facial emotional expressions in children around the age of five. Using eye tracking technology while children attempted the Attachment Story Completion Task, researchers set out to track facial expressions and eye movement. As a result of this study, understanding of children's emotional information processing as it relates to attachment centered around the idea that attachment security predicted children’s attention to neutral and sad expressions. Moreover, secure children looked longer at the fearful expressions than insecure children (Kammermeier et al.; 2019). This could be related to the notion that young adolescents with an insecure or avoidant attachment experience extreme to moderate discomfort when viewing these situations of separation and find it more comfortable to look away. On the other hand, secure infants might feel like they have the secure base in their parent to indulge in activities that arouse curiosity.
While Kammermeier et al. is one example of research on attachment in young children and displays how the attachment system might function outside of infancy, research on adolescent attachment progressed the field in many ways. Wang et al. (2020) published a study on parent-infant relationships with harsh discipline and their relation to parent and peer attachment. Looking at mother and father attachment to their infants using population samples from China. Wang et al. (2020) revealed that harsh discipline coming from one parent indirectly relates to the attachment associated with another parent. While the results did not differ across genders, this study in conversation with Fraley and Davis (1997), is important for understanding how parents provide a foundation as primary attachment figures. However, through adolescence, children experience transferring attachment related mechanisms from caregivers to peers. Depending on peer relationships and their strength, people might alter their attachment figures based on the similar characteristic of attachment in infancy: the extent they are proximal, trusting, and provide relief. Fraley and Davis (1997) brought to light more language pertaining to attachment when they hypothesized that individuals seeking attachment outside of original caregiver relationships yearn for an attachment figure who is proximal, a secure base, and a safe haven. In other words, similar to when parents are there for you as children, attachment figures later on in life are assessed and acquired based on whether or not they provide in similar ways. Wang et al. (2020) and Fraley and Davis (1997) helped to posit attachment as a system necessary and utilized outside of infancy – yet constructed from the attachment system built during childhood with one’s caregiver.
As attachment research progressed, more subfields began to emerge when psychologists assessed adult attachment. Investigations by Whipple et al. (2010) bring to surface one of the most important measures pertaining to adult attachment research and predicting caregiving behaviors in individuals. Using an updated version of The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) originally created in 1984 by George et al., the AAI has developed into a telling, yet limited approach to understanding adult attachment. Based entirely on the discourse one is capable of creating pertaining to their own attachment system, the AAI assesses adult attachment styles with the understanding that adults are capable of doing something infants are not – creating language. Thus the ability for one to create discourse surrounding attachment that displays metacognition, or one's awareness to their thought process at the time relevant to the discussion, is of the utmost importance when rendering individuals as securely attached. On the other hand, individuals who are insecurely attached might display more distressed discourse or ambivalence while avoidantly attached people express extreme distress and angst. The AAI’s approach to assessing attachment, while a general one, has limitations that stem from one’s education and privilege to ability, race, ethnicity, and other intersectional identities. While the AAI is a sufficient measure for attachment styles in adults despite its limitations, the reality is that its presence is representative of attachment psychology progressing beyond childhood and into adulthood.
When attachment enters adulthood, behaviors displayed can be representative of different kinds of attachment desires. Whether they are platonic, romantic, peer-peer, or some other kind of relationship, attachment in adulthood takes on a new role. Work produced by Kulibert et al. (2019) brings into question motives related to romantic attachment styles and relationship satisfaction. Using romantic kissing as a way of understanding motives, satisfaction, and romantic attachment, Kulibert et al. (2019) found that the kissing motives present in a relationship actually depended on one’s romantic attachment style. In the end, kissing was representative of a motive by insecurely attached people to raise satisfaction in their relationships. This might have not been the case for securely attached adults, but Kilibert et al. (2019) found that insecure motives were correlated with negative effects on relationship satisfaction. Research on romantic attachment also yearned to take into account the different kinds of relationships that have been established throughout history – specifically long distance relationships. Looking at relationship satisfaction in long-distance versus proximal romantic relationships of college students, Roberts and Pistole (2009) revealed that attachment styles contributed uniquely to both long- distance and proximal attachments. In long-distance relationships, satisfaction was correlated with low attachment avoidance while low attachment anxiety and proximity contributed significantly to proximal romantic satisfaction (Roberts and Pistole; (2009). While Kilibert et al. (2019) and Roberts and Pistole (2009) contributed different pieces to romantic attachment research, their work represents how attachment psychology progressed even further by generating an understanding of different relationships where attachment systems might play a role in determining our attitudes and behaviors.
With this context, it is clear that the attachment system is complex, beyond dynamic, and rather sensitive. While it is constructed from parent-infant relationships as they often serve as a foundation for future attachment, the attachment system is malleable to other events in life. In other words, the context provided goes to show that the attachment system does not remain the same throughout life, but is constantly adapting to the environment around us. However, when we are able to acknowledge the complexities of assigning attachment, understanding how we measure and deem attachment styles must be taken with a grain of salt.
Self Assessment of Attachment
In assessing my own attachment style, the research provided above brings to surface the necessary kinds of attachment scenarios to assess: General Attachment, Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment, Romantic Attachment, and Platonic Attachment. The Attachment Styles and Close Relationships measure utilized by Chris Fraley at the University of Illinois was used to determine variations of my own attachment. With the understanding that people differ in attachment based on two factors, anxiety and avoidance, Fraley hypothesized that people who are high on attachment anxiety become worried about others feelings towards them and fear rejection. Moreover, avoidant individuals find it significantly uncomfortable to be vulnerable. After the scale is administered, categorizations of attachment are deemed. A Secure attachment style is characteristic of someone who is comfortable depending on others as well as being depended on by others. They are also not concerned with people’s perceptions of them. Fearful-avoidant people find discomfort in depending on others and serving as an attachment figure, while simultaneously worrying that they may not receive the care they need when it is most important. On the other hand, Dismissing-avoidant attachment is representative of individuals who are uncomfortable depending on others as well as being depended on – but simply do not care whether they are trusted. Lastly, Preoccupied individuals display anxiety that attachment figures will not be there when needed, yet yearn for dependence despite the feeling that it is not reciprocated. Scores were given for anxiety and avoidance ranging from one (low) to five (high). However, with any kind of self report measure, it is very important to recognize the limitations. The reality is that individuals have the ability to skew, exaggerate, or outright lie due to social desirability bias. Before I delve into my own attachment, it is important for me to share that the measure was completed honestly and to the best of my ability in order to generate the most accurate and effective understanding of my attachment system as well as to test my knowledge.
After self administering The Attachment Styles and Close Relationships measure assessing my anxiety and avoidance surrounding attachment, my general, maternal, paternal, romantic, and platonic attachment styles were assumed using a score of one to five. Beginning with the assessment of my general attachment style, an anxiety score of 1.33 and avoidance score of 1.50 was assigned. These scores are markers, according to Fraley, of individuals with a secure attachment style that stays present through a majority of their relationships. Fraley would argue that these scores are representative of someone who is very comfortable depending on others as well as being depended on, yet does not get caught up in what others think about them. To contextualize why my general attachment style is secure, delving into my other attachment styles in alternative relationships is necessary. This is because one’s general attachment style is a summation of the attachment styles experienced in the majority of your close relationships.
With the same measure posited to assess my general attachment, my maternal attachment style was yielded. For both the avoidance and anxiety scales, my maternal attachment was scored as a 1.00 – the lowest possible score. To begin to understand this, my relationship with my mother was one fostered by her desire to be proximal, a secure base, and a safe haven for me and my siblings. While my attachment might be different from my two brothers, our mother tried to care for us not just from a model of equality, but from an understanding of equity. That is, my mother was capable of parenting from an impartial perspective because her most visceral desire was to make sure that we had what we needed even if we were incapable of understanding. As children, she would regularly take the time to explain decisions where these intricacies were present and had the patience to reiterate when needed. Moreover, in explaining why my attachment with my mother is secure, understanding my paternal attachment score of 1.33 for anxiety and 2.33 for avoidance is very important. Early on in my childhood, around the age of seven, my parents went through a divorce after my father had an affair. I remember everything vividly, but the language that I presently have to explain is that I was aware that the two of them were better off this way. While I at first felt very much alone as my mother had asked my father – rightfully so – to move out of the house, my attachment to my mother grew in comparison to my father as one was significantly more proximal to me. After many legal battles for custody and a final decision that left my father with less than partial custody - which was his decision - I eventually started to see him about 10 days a month. This was partially due to the fact that he was working, but fully due to the schedule pushed for by him in court. My mother, in juxtaposition, committed her life to her three boys and we felt the effects. Not only was she always right around the corner ready to provide care, but she was a homebase for us to return to and a place of solitude from any kind of adversity. My father is very much the same kind of parent, however, my security with him stems from my understanding that the extent to which he is a proximal parent, secure base, and safe haven for me is unlimited in theory – but limited by what I know he could provide. In other words, while my mother is unconditionally present yet conveniently absent, my security with my father is a result of understanding that his decisions were his own and unconditionality stems from his decisions – not what is best for his children.
In understanding how prioritization of other things in life by my father paved the way for my attachment to him as well as my mother situates myself in an interesting position when it comes to building romantic attachment. While many children are often products of divorce, the experiences they have of their parents afterwards can be really visceral. After receiving a score of 1.00 for anxiety and a 1.17 for avoidance of romantic attachment, I began to question why I am as single as a pringle while I write this piece. Security in this subcategory of attachment is a result of my parents as well. After their divorce, I was introduced rather quickly to my stepmother and had no judgment for their actions when I acquired the truth. This revealed to me a new dynamic in romantic relationships that deviated from the picket fence that I had grown accustomed to living in until their separation as love and intimacy initially expressed itself as complicated to me. However, I was not uncomfortable with the complications and my understanding of what my mother was doing after her separation was important for getting me to this point. From an early age, I had the privilege of experiencing a mother, role model, and overall caregiver date rather than already being in a partnership! I had the opportunity to meet men who more than often showed me what not to be, but eventually she met someone who makes a great role model to us and partner to her. Amidst all this dating, the stigma of needing to be attached to a man as a woman was eliminated because more often than not was my mother present with her children. This presence made it significantly easier for me to understand when she needed to make decisions for herself. As a whole, the four caregivers that are in my life give me a terrific picture of the kind of person I want to be in romantic relationships. Understanding the kind of person I yearn to be as a partner helps me find security and solace during romantic adversity as I very much feel that finding the right person takes patience – the same kind of patience my mother had when looking for another partner while taking care of her kids. Present security in romantic relationships also can be attributed to my experiences with exes. Having a mother who told me many times to lead with kindness, my relationships with partners were always attempted this way first. While it was a learning curve for sure, security was built from my understanding of my parents' relationship with each other, their second partner, and eventually my partners as I knew how to have the conversation necessary to end things. That is, after seeing what divorce looks like, I felt very comfortable telling people, not only when I have feelings for them, but when those feelings cease. Moreover, because of how my father ended his relationship with my mother, conversations revolving around terminating relationships, whether platonic or romantic in this case, are approached in healthy ways because of my legitimate understanding that things eventually work out whether you find attachment with someone else or continue to grow it for yourself.
Lastly, my friend attachment was scaled as a 1.00 for anxiety and 1.33 for avoidance, and this can be attributed to three relationships in my life. Growing up as a twin and with brothers in general, I was lucky enough to understand from an incredibly early age that it was us against the world. My mother would often tell us that we should stick together, even against her, as it is important we have each other's backs. However, this was a metaphor for her as the way she showed us how to have each other’s backs is by being there when we are needed, but not to the extent that you are suffocating them. I knew exactly when to cheer my brothers on and when to help them up, even as we find ourselves in different parts of the world presently. Moreover, as time went on after my parents separation, my cousins and aunt moved into our home creating a total of eight people living under one roof – six of them were children. While not everyone has the same relationship with their cousins as I do, four years of living under the same roof allowed me to foster friendships at a fragile period in my life where they might not have been proximal all the time, but they were a secure base and safe haven to the extent that we shared the same physical space for a haven and base. Moreover, our proximal figures were also both in the house. While there was fighting and animosity like all siblings had, my relationship with my cousins helped me to understand how people can continue to be present, especially after they are no longer tangibly present. I put theory to practice with my best friend Ren who attends University of London. Having not seen each other in two years, my friendship with her represents my security in platonic relationships further as the two of us are always capable of picking up right where we left off. Whether it is a phone call, in person, or the exchange of memes, our communication with one another continues to be something representative of two people fully aware that the other one is still there unconditionally. While I might have been born with a friend, entered into a family with more, and managed to create my own as time went on, security in friendships has allowed me to create a support system capable of helping me through anything.
For a deeper understanding of my general secure attachment as well as how security seeps into other relationships, The Attachment Styles and Close Relationships measure provides scores from the big five personality traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. Just like anxiety and avoidance on the attachment scale, a score of one was deemed low and a score of 5 was deemed high. With a score of 2.75 for extraversion, 4.25 for agreeableness, 3.75 for conscientiousness, 2.25 for neuroticism, and 5.00 for openness, a lot of discourse on my attachment system can follow. However, the main point to focus on is that the lower than average score of neuroticism, practically even score for extraversion, and above average score for openness seem to make sense for an individual who is comfortable with themselves alone as well as with the attachments they have to other people. Moreover, someone low on neuroticism is often considered relatively emotionally stable and capable of experiencing unpleasant emotions easily. In other words, these scores are representative of someone who seems to be rather comfortable with themselves and others to such an extent that their openness to experience provides morals to situate my attachment to myself.
Conclusion
As I wind this piece down, it is important to notice what was revealed by the literature used as context as well as by the measures utilized. A pattern of returning to parents as foundations for the attachment system not only showed up in prior research, but was also something tangibly recognizable in my life. For a series of these attachment systems, my relationship with my parents provided the foundation and as I ventured out into the world and grew older, I have found myself able to support this idea with real examples. However, as time has gone on and I have been able to build more attachments to more people, the foundation that my parents provide continues to be a foundation, but ceases to be the only attachment that I return to in order to understand growing relationships. Moreover, I must quickly address the important limitations of psychology research that this paper’s results are susceptible to as well. With many fields of psychology being supported by self report measures, the extent to which results are true are always hard to determine. Hence the grain of salt, as no matter what anyone says, social desirability is a very real phenomenon.
While past research provides the context as well as the language that enabled me to determine my general attachment and other subcategories of attachment, the attachment system is not a static phenomenon. While I write this piece, I may be secure in my attachment; however, my knowledge generated from PSYC 300: Topic in Attachment has helped me to understand that the attachment system is fragile. Insecurity might arise at any point – but there's a trick to getting rid of it. I will end with my solution which is to surround yourself with discourse capable of explaining the feelings you have. Thus we return to the idea that understanding one's own attachment as well as how the attachment system functions can be pivotal in redefining your relationship with attachment. So while insecurity is possibly right around the corner, the acknowledgement that one has the tools to deal with it will help them outlast and overcome the discomfort of it.
Citations:
R. Chris Fraley (2019) Adult Attachment Theory and Research
S. Karger (2005) Mother Infant Attachment, Peer Relationships, and the Development of Social Networks
in Rhesus Monkeys. Human development, vol. 48, no. ½, Beyond the Dyad: Conceptualization of Social Network. Pp. 67-79
R. Nowak, M. Keller, F. Levy (2011) Mother-Young Relationships in Sheep: A Model for a
Multidisciplinary Approach of the study of Attachment in Mammals. Journal of Neuroendocrinology
M. Kammermeier, L. Duran Perez, L. König, M. Paulus (2020) Attachment security and attention to facial
emotional expression in preschoolers: An eye-tracking study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 38, 167-185
F. Wang, M. Wang, T. Wang, Z. Wang (2021) Harsh Discipline , Parent -Child Attachment, and Peer
Attachment in Late Childhood and Early Adolescence. Journal of Child and Family Studies (2021), 20:196-205
N. Whipple, A. Bernier, G.A. Mageau (2011) A Dimensional Approach to Maternal Attachment State of
Mind: Relations to Maternal Sensitivity and Maternal Autonomy Support. Developmental Psychology, Vol. 47, NO. 2, 396-403
D.J. Kulibert, E.A. Moore, M.M. Dertinger, A.E. Thompson (2019) Attached at the Lips: The Influence of
Romantic Kissing Motives and Romantic Attachment Styles on Relationship Satisfaction. An
international Journal of Personal Relationships. Interpersona, 2019, Vol. 13(1), 14–30, https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v13i1.324
A.Roberts, M. Carole Pistole (2009) Long-Distance and Proximal Romantic Relationship Satisfaction:
Attachment and Closeness Predictors. American Counseling Association, Vol. 12