5.2: Attachment
- Page ID
- 244996
This page is a draft and is under active development.
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)
\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)
\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\(\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}\) \(\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}\) \(\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}\) \(\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}\) \(\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}\) \(\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}\) \(\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}\) \(\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}\) \(\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}\) \(\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}\) \(\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}\) \(\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}\) \(\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}\) \(\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}\) \(\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}\) \(\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}\) \(\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}\) \(\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}\) \(\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}\) \(\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}\) \(\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}\) \(\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}\) \(\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}\) \(\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}\) \(\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}\) \(\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}\) \(\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}\) \(\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}\) \(\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}\) \(\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}\) \(\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}\) \(\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}\) \(\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}\) \(\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}\) \(\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}\) \(\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}\) \(\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}\) \(\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}\) \(\newcommand{\lt}{<}\) \(\newcommand{\gt}{>}\) \(\newcommand{\amp}{&}\) \(\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}\)
A bond with another individual.
Attachment (Bowlby)
John Bowlby (1907), a British psychoanalyst, believed that humans are biologically programmed to seek and form attachment with caregivers. Bowlby was critical of psychoanalysts at the time who were placing emphasis on children's internal conflict, rather than on the environment in which children are raised (Bowlby & Solomon, 1989).
Bowlby believed attachment was a product of evolutionary processes, that throughout generations of children being close to their caregivers, infants were born with the innate need to be close to their caregivers (Bowlby & Solomon, 1989). Bowlby's work was influenced by Lorenz's (1935) work on imprinting in animals. Lorenz (1935) showed that young animals imprint on the first caregiver they see, in the care of his research, he observed ducklings imprinting on the first moving figure that they saw.
Bowlby (1951) developed the monotropic theory of attachment, meaning that infants form one primary attachment with the main caregiver. This attachment was viewed by Bowlby as crucial for the child's survival and development. He viewed early experiences as influential to children's internal working model, which affects their later relationships.
The monotropic theory of attachment developed by Bowlby included:
Secure Base: Children rely on dependable caregivers who allow children to explore their environment, however caregivers stay close so that children can return to their caregiver for support and comfort.
Critical Period: Bowlby (1951) suggested that there are negative consequences if children do not form bonds during the first year or two of life. Bowlby was concerned that these effects may be permanent if attachment did not form during these early years.
Maternal Deprivation: There is potential for negative consequences in attachment if children experience disruptions with their caregiver or are deprived of their primary caregiver (Bowlby, 1988). He conducted a study between 1936 and 1939 following 88 children. From his research with these children, Bowlby found that 14 children were unable to empathize with others. Of these 14 children, 12 had prolonged periods of separation from their mothers during the critical period he had theorized, during their first two years of life.
Multiple Attachments: While Bowlby (1969, 1988) believed attachment to be monotropic, he also stated that multiple attachments can form, although they are arranged in a hierarchy with the primary attachment being dominant.
Maternal Deprivation Studies (Harlow)
Harry and Margaret Harlow, a married couple, conducted studies on social isolation and maternal deprivation during the 1950's (Harlow & Harlow, 1958). In these studies, Harlow used monkeys to demonstrate attachment.
Through one study, Harlow used newborn rhesus monkeys who were separated from their birth mothers. He set up two cages with mother-monkeys made of wires (Harlow & Harlow, 1958). One of the wire monkeys had a bottle with food and the other was covered in soft cloth. The infant monkey would go to the wire monkey with food when it was hungry, but otherwise would spend its time with the one covered in cloth. While one provided food, the other provided comfort that the baby appeared to crave.
Harlow's experiments proved that the prevailing belief of infants forming attachment based on food provision was false, rather infants form attachment through contact, comfort, and emotional security (Harlow & Harlow, 1958).
Types of Attachment (Ainsworth)
Mary Ainsworth, Bowlby's Tavistock collegue, dug further into the idea of attachment and is considered the co-founder of Attachment Theory (Bowlby & Solomon, 1989). After conducting a research experiment in the 1970's, called "the Strange Situation," Ainsworth (et al., 1971) developed the idea that children develop either secure or insecure attachment styles. In the experiment, the mother, baby, and experimenter came into a room together. After a few minutes, the mother leaves the room, leaving the child with the experimenter. Once the mother returns, both mother and the experimenter leave after a few minutes. Ainsworth and her team watched videotapes to monitor the children's reactions to the adults leaving, developing the understanding of types of attachment styles.
Secure Attachment Styles
The first style of attachment, secure attachment, is the ideal type of attachment we hope that children will build with their caregivers (Ainsworth et al., 1971). Secure attachment is classified by:
Secure Attachment | Children with a secure attachment style have a positive sense of self, trust others, and are comfortable in seeking relationships. |
Insecure Attachment Styles
While insecure attachment styles are the second type of attachment, this attachment style manifests in different ways (Ainsworth et al., 1971). There are 4 types of insecure attachment:
Anxious-Preoccupied | Children are highly dependent on their caregivers and worry about being left. These children may be clingy, needy, and be co-dependent on others. |
Dismissive-Avoidant | Children hide/suppress their feelings and strive to be independent. They may find trusting difficult and may prefer to distance themselves from others. |
Fearful-Avoidant | Children want to be close to others, but are afraid of being close. They may be hesitant to join play. |
Disorganized-Unresolved | When caregivers are inconsistent (which may be confusing to children), children may be afraid of their caregiver and others. |
Stages of Attachment (Schaffer and Emerson)
Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy Emerson (1964) engaged in a longitudinal study with 60 infants, observing infants every four weeks during the children's first year of life and then again when children turned 18 months.
During their observations, they (Schaffer & Emerson, 1964) demonstrated their findings through outlining 4 stages of attachment. While they attached age ranges to each stage, the findings showed that these were more of the approximate age, rather than a fixed age for children's development.
Stage | Age of Children |
Characteristics |
Pre-Attachment Stage | Birth to 3 months | Infants do not show a preference for any caregivers. Rather, at this stage, infants needs encourage caregivers to stay close by. |
Indiscriminate Attachment | 6 weeks to 7 months | In this stage, infants begin to show a preference for caregivers. They are beginning to trust that caregivers will respond to their needs. |
Discriminate Attachment | 7 months to 11 months | In this stage, infants demonstrate a strong preference for one caregiver. They may protest when separated from their caregiver and begin to show nervousness around strangers. (Ie. demonstrate separation and stranger anxiety) |
Multiple Attachments | 9 months and older | At this stage, infants are forming bonds with multiple caregivers in addition to their primary caregiver. |
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1971) Individual differences in strange- situation behavior of one-year-olds. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.) The origins of human social relations. London and New York: Academic Press. Pp. 17-58.
Bowlby, J., & Solomon, M. (1989). Attachment theory. Los Angeles, CA: Lifespan Learning Institute.
Harlow, H. F., & Harlow, M. K. (1962). Social deprivation in monkeys. Scientific american, 207(5), 136-150.
Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. World Health Organization Monograph.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). Attachment, communication, and the therapeutic process. A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development, 137-157.
Lorenz, K. (1935). Der Kumpan in der Umwelt des Vogels. Der Artgenosse als auslösendes Moment sozialer Verhaltensweisen. Journal für Ornithologie 83, 137–215.
Schaffer, H. R., & Emerson, P. E. (1964). The development of social attachments in infancy. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 1-77.