Article/En savoir plus sur l'abandonnisme (Aide psy)

En savoir plus sur l'abandonnisme

(http://www.aidepsy.be/en_savoir_plus_abandonnisme)

1. Description

L'abandonnique redoute par-dessus tout le fait qu'on ne s'occupe plus de lui. Il voit dans ce manque de sollicitude une privation d'amour qu'il ressent comme une frustration. Il réclame des certitudes absolues et des réassurances persistantes, seules certaines personnes élues comme objets sont capables de lui apporter la certitude qui alimente sa sécurité. Il est habité par la hantise d'être abandonné et, projetant sa peur sur l'objet, il lui attribue des arrière-pensées, des doutes, des sentiments d'antipathie, des intentions méchantes ou des mobiles agressifs et hostiles. Cette crainte constante d'être "lâché" met l'objet dans une situation si difficile et si lassante qu'elle peut aboutir à la longue à un lâchage réel. Telle est la fatalité qui pèse sur l'abandonnien, il favorise l'abandon. (1)

Pour Guex G. (2), si la "névrose d'abandon", n'est pas un ensemble de phénomènes réactionnels à un abandon vrai, elle n'est pas non plus une névrose au sens freudien du terme. Elle n'est pas la conséquence d'un conflit, elle relève d'un stade antérieur du développement de l'individu. Il s'agit d'une névrose pré-oedipienne, avec un vécu extrêmement actif, mais de façon consciente, qui n'a été ni accepté et "digéré", ni refoulé. Il est ressenti comme actuel, malgré son ancienneté et, dans la plupart des cas, le sujet le ressasse sans cesse. Il crée la névrose non du fait de ses irruptions inconscientes dans la vie du patient, mais par suite des décalages et anachronismes qu'il provoque. Le névrosé vit sur deux plans (petite enfance, âge réel) les confondant et se comportant en conséquence. Ce sont des gens demeurés à un stade primitif, où toute force instinctuelle et affective semble drainée dans un seul sens, s'assurer l'amour et par là, maintenir la sécurité. Il y a primauté de l'image maternelle et paternelle maternisée pour les deux sexes. L'évolution affective liée au développement normal de l'instinct sexuel, telle que Freud l'a décrite, ne peut se produire : pas d'Oedipe, ou tendance oedipienne sporadique et de faible intensité, toujours prête à "s'infantiliser". Partant de là, pas de Surmoi. C'est le Moi, et non le Surmoi, qui s'oppose à l'Oedipe, un Moi très primitif pour qui la relation oedipienne est inconcevable car elle constitue une menace quant à la sécurité. L'abandonnique aspire au sentiment de fusion avec un autre être (la mère) et non au sentiment de relation qu'il ne conçoit même pas.

Sources :

1. Odier C. : « L'angoisse et la pensée magique. Essai d'analyse psychogénétique appliquée à la phobie et la névrose d'abandon »

2. Guex G. : « La névrose d'abandon »

2. Symptômes

Les abandonniques ont toujours deux caractères en commun : l'angoisse et l'agressivité qui se rattachent à un état psychologique initial, caractérisé par l'absence d'un juste sentiment du Moi et de sa valeur propre. C'est sur l'angoisse qu'éveille tout abandon, sur l'agressivité qu'il fait naître et sur la non-valorisation de soi-même qui en découle, que s'édifie toute le symptomatologie de cette névrose. (1)

a) les peurs et l'angoisse

Non-valorisé, l'enfant se trouve dans un état de faiblesse et d'impuissance qui donne naissance aux terreurs. L'adulte qu'il devient ne peut s'en délivrer, il reste ce qu'il était : un être prématuré devant la vie, incapable de s'y adapter par lui-même, la réalité demeurant pour lui hostile et inaccessible. Pour Odier C. (2), les peurs et angoisses de l'abandonnique, soit à l'état de veille, soit à l'état de sommeil (cauchemar), ont toutes les caractéristiques des terreurs primaires de l'enfant en face des êtres et objets doués par lui d'une toute-puissance maléfique. On peut retrouver des peurs cosmiques (tremblement de terre, ...), physiques (feu, vide, armes, animaux, maladies, mort, ...), psychiques dont l'objet central est la peur de manquer d'amour ou peur de le perdre.

Parmi celles-ci il y a :

- la peur de se montrer tel que l'on est : l'abandonnique doute qu'on puisse l'aimer tel qu'il est, car il a fait la cruelle expérience de l'abandon, alors qu'il se proposait à la tendresse des autres, tout petit, donc sans artifice

- la peur du risque affectif : l'angoisse de l'abandon et de la solitude entraînent une peur intense de tout ce qui peut comporter un risque dans ce sens

- la peur de la responsabilité : pour éviter ce risque, l'abandonnique ne s'engage affectivement vis-à-vis de rien ni de personne à moins de garanties sérieuses. D'une manière générale, il redoute la responsabilité et a tendance à la rejeter sur autrui

Hanté par la peur de perdre l'amour, l'abandonnique cherche à se préserver de ce malheur et de l'angoisse qui l'accompagne par des mesures de protection, tantôt négatives (refus de s'engager, s'infliger l'abandon pour éviter le sentiment d'être le jouet d'autrui : lâcher pour ne pas être lâché), tantôt positives (dévouement, asservissement à autrui, soin porté à préserver le lien, ...).

L'angoisse abandonnique a toutes les caractéristiques du stade de développement élémentaire auquel elle appartient. C'est l'angoisse primaire par excellence, liée à l'incapacité de l'enfant de satisfaire ses propres besoins et de se défendre contre les menaces du monde extérieur. Elle est immédiate et parfois très confuse, constituée par un débordement d'émotion que le Moi est incapable d'endiguer. Dès la deuxième année, elle participe au stade magique et à la prélogique enfantine, elle garde ces caractères, quel que soit l'âge du sujet. Sous le coup d'une menace de frustration, l'abandonnique régresse immédiatement au stade d'impuissance primaire, et son Moi, envahi par l'émotion et la peur, ressent le malheur comme inévitable et déjà consommé. (1)

b) l'agressivité

Elle est réactionnelle, consécutive aux privations d'amour de l'enfance et susceptible de diminuer, puis de disparaître au cours du traitement. Elle se manifeste par la vengeance, faire subir à l'autre ce dont l'abandonnique a souffert lui-même et menacer, frustrer, abandonner. Il fait payer à autrui ses souffrances passées de mille façons :

- par les exigences sans limite de son besoin d'amour

Exigences liées à la pensée magique, la plus grande preuve d'amour qu'il réclame de l'objet est non seulement d'être compris, mais d'être deviné. Il s'agit de mettre à l'épreuve pour faire la preuve soit en disant le faux pour mettre à l'épreuve le don divinatoire de l'objet, et par là même s'assurer de son intérêt et de sa compréhension, soit de savoir si l'objet aimera malgré tout le sujet tel qu'il est et si désagréable qu'il puisse se montrer, la mesure de son endurance donnant la mesure de son amour.

Exigences liées à la méconnaissance de l'intention, les paroles sont trompeuses, la compréhension intérieure et les sentiments sont sujets à caution. Il lui faut des faits, et ces faits seront envisagés par lui à l'état brut, dépouillés de leur contexte, des circonstances connexes, des intentions de l'objet : "il aurait pu arriver à l'heure s'il l'avait réellement voulu, s'il le désirait vraiment, il pourrait vaincre tous les obstacles". Le manque de sécurité affective joint à un égocentrisme très primitif abolit le sens du possible, du réel et le fait recourir à la croyance magique en la toute puissance de l'objet.

Exigences liées au besoin d'absolu : l'abandonnique aspire à tout partager avec l'être qu'il aime, à tout savoir, à tout faire avec lui. L'attachement abandonnique est exclusif, il n'admet ni l'absence, ni le partage, c'est tout ou rien. (1)

- par une attitude passive

Demeuré fixé au stade réceptif et captatif de l'enfance, il attend tout d'autrui. Dans les cas aigus, il demeure passif dans tous les domaines de la vie. Cette lacune est exploitée par l'abandonnique dans le sens de sa névrose, pour prolonger la jouissance d'un état infantile d'irresponsabilité et pour avoir barre sur autrui en l'asservissant à ses besoins. On retrouve ici le déplacement d'agressivité tendant à faire supporter par les objets actuels les fautes commises par les parents, et leurs nombreuses conséquences. (1)

- par ses interprétations "fantaisies et comportement masochique

Il s'agit dans ce cas d'un masochisme affectif et non d'un masochisme moral comme Freud l'a décrit (retournement contre soi d'un sadisme primitivement dirigé contre autrui, puis refoulé). Odier C. (2) l'a décrit comme primaire, partiellement donné dans la constitution même de l'individu et renforcé par l'abandon, il n'est donc pas le produit d'un refoulement dû au Surmoi. Ses mécanismes, élaborés par le Moi, sont généralement conscients ou préconscients et semblent vouloir d'une part, renforcer et justifier le sentiment de non-valeur de soi-même, d'autre part, d'alimenter la rancune initiale et l'empêcher de s'éteindre. La dimension agressive est bien présente : en s'en prenant à soi-même, en niant sa propre valeur, en s'abaissant, en s'avilissant, en se détruisant psychiquement, le sujet sait bien qu'il atteint l'objet, et à travers lui, parfois directement aussi, la mère ou le père coupable du manque d'amour.

On peut observer trois groupes de manifestations masochiques selon Guex G. (1) :

- les manifestations masochiques liées au besoin de mettre à l'épreuve pour faire la preuve : résultat de ses fausses attitudes, ses faux refus, ... qui le privent sans cesse de ce qu'il souhaite, de ce à quoi il aspire. Ils accentuent sa situation d'infériorité, son état de dépendance et aboutissent à l'échec

- les manifestations masochiques explosives : scènes de désespoir, crise de dévalorisation dirigées contre l'objet, accès d'angoisse plus ou moins spectaculaires. Plutôt qu'à se faire consoler et rassurer, le sujet vise à blesser l'objet, à le désemparer, à lui donner de la culpabilité, car le propre de ces crises est de mettre en évidence l'irresponsabilité du sujet et la complète responsabilité de l'objet

- les manifestations masochiques secrètes : rêveries et fantasmes masochiques de caractère affectif, non sexuel. L'agressivité est présente car dans ses fantasmes, l'objet devient capable de tout, c'est-à-dire du pire : tromperies, infidélité, abandon

c) la non-valorisation

Les circonstances traumatisantes qui ont privé l'enfant de sécurité affective se sont produites dans ses premières années, alors que tout son développement était encore à faire et que, par conséquent, l'acquisition du sentiment de la valeur de soi-même était à venir. Il ne s'agit donc pas ici d'un sentiment de valeur perdu, mais d'un sentiment de valeur non-acquis. Cette non-valorisation de l'abandonnique en tant qu'objet d'amour s'exprime en premier lieu par des doutes multiples envers lui-même : "je ne vaux pas qu'on m'aime". Ces doutes ont tendance à se fixer sur des manifestations extérieures de la personnalité ou sur quelque défaut physique, autour duquel se cristallise toute l'insécurité du sujet. Le mécanisme de défense en jeu est le rejet de la responsabilité par la projection à l'extérieur des causes du trouble.

Il arrive parfois que des abandonniques se rendent compte de certaines lacunes intérieures, c'est à elles que s'accroche et s'alimente leur sentiment d'impuissance : manque d'intelligence, de culture, ... Ce sont alors ces manques illusoires ou réels qui justifient pour eux leurs échecs affectifs, leurs déceptions en amitié ou en amour. Les doutes de l'abandonnique quant à lui-même sont renforcés par un mécanisme qui procède de la même cause, c'est-à-dire de la non-valorisation, consistant à survaloriser autrui dans la mesure même où l'on se sait dévalorisé. A son tour, la survalorisation des autres engendre la tendance à se comparer sans cesse à eux, à son propre détriment. Cercle fermé, où un mal fait naître un plus grand mal. La non-valorisation affective amène toujours l'abandonnique à un sentiment extrêmement pénible et obsédant d'exclusion, de n'avoir nulle part sa place.

De cette non-valorisation découle une fausse notion de soi-même, un manque de respect et d'un juste intérêt pour soi-même. (1)

Sources :

1. Guex G. : « La névrose d'abandon »

2. Odier C. : « L'angoisse et la pensée magique. Essai d'analyse psychogénétique appliquée à la phobie et la névrose d'abandon »

3. Etiologie

Du point de vue psychique, la petite enfance des névrosés adultes, comme celles des enfants directement observés en période d'angoisse d'abandon, présente trois traits caractéristiques :

- une forte affectivité, avec prédominance des besoins affectifs sur les autres besoins

- un besoin possessif intense, plus ou moins camouflé, à l'égard des êtres qu'il aime. Intolérance à la privation, à l'absence, au partage

- une tendance marquée à l'anxiété

Le petit abandonnique témoigne d'une sorte de "gloutonnerie" affective (à rapprocher de la gloutonnerie réelle que manifestent certains enfants en période de carence affective). Pour qu'il soit heureux et paisible, il faut qu'il se sente entouré de tous ceux qui l'aiment et qu'il chérit en retour, que rien ne menace l'unité familiale en général et singulièrement son unité avec la mère et que celle-ci lui donne preuve sur preuve de son amour. Inversement, tout ce qui menace cette unité, tout ce qui lui semble porter atteinte à l'exclusivité du lien, déclenche son désespoir ou sa révolte. Sa sécurité s'effondre avec la même facilité qu'elle se retrouve : il dépend entièrement du climat créé autour de lui, et ce climat lui-même est dû souvent à de très petites choses, des nuances, des riens, qu'un autre enfant ne remarque même pas et qui risquent de passer inaperçus aux yeux de l'adulte inattentif. Facile à éduquer et à adapter aux exigences de la vie pour tout ce qui ne touche pas à l'affectif, car là ne réside pas son intérêt primordial, il manifeste une intolérance quasi absolue à tout ce qui implique un renoncement sur le plan de l'amour possessif. (1)

A un moment de son existence, l'enfant s'est trouvé en face d'une privation d'amour non objectivement motivée, par exemple dans les innombrables cas de "fausse présence" maternelle. Une fausse-présence qui s'oppose à la réalisation d'une concordance correcte et heureuse entre l'action de l'objet et les besoins du sujet, cela se ramène à une présence purement corporelle ou matérielle avec succession d'actes moteurs et de paroles impersonnelles. L'enfant s'est senti seul, ne comprenant pas et s'angoissant. De ces privations-là la mère la plus attentive ne peut donner que des explications superficielles et fausses, que l'enfant enregistre comme telles, puisque les raisons véritables, le plus souvent, lui échappent à elle-même. L'analyse prouve que le besoin de s'expliquer son malheur tourmente alors profondément l'enfant. Il faut qu'il comprenne. Suivant sa nature et ses tendances profondes, il adopte soit le point de vue de l'infériorité "Je ne vaux pas qu'on m'aime", soit le point de vue de la culpabilité "C'est ma faute, on ne peut pas m'aimer parce que je suis méchant". Il est rare que la névrose d'abandon s'installe suite à un abandon réel. (2)

On retrouve donc la même étiologie que dans l'angoisse d'abandon, cela laisse supposer qu'un enfant souffrant d'angoisse d'abandon risque de devenir un adulte abandonnique s'il n'a pas été aidé dans son enfance.

Sources :

1. Guex G. : « La névrose d'abandon »

2. Odier C. : « L'angoisse et la pensée magique. Essai d'analyse psychogénétique appliquée à la phobie et la névrose d'abandon »

Test/What is your attachment style?

What is your attachment style?

(Source : http://www.web-research-design.net/cgi-bin/crq/crq.pl)

This interactive survey takes about 5 minutes to complete. The questionnaire is designed to measure your 'attachment style'--the way you relate to others in the context of intimate relationships. When completed, the site will reveal your attachment style, and provide a brief summary of what is known about your attachment style on the basis of contemporary scientific research.

You must be 18 years or older to participate.

By clicking the above button, you certify that you are 18 years or older.

Article/Attachment in adults (Wikipedia)

Attachment in adults

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_in_adults#Secure_attachment)

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.

Extending attachment theory

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. 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 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 caregiving experiences.
• Romantic love, as commonly conceived, involves the interplay of attachment, caregiving and sex.

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

• 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 and on a review of studies by Pietromonaco and Barrett.

There are several attachment-based treatment approaches that can be used with adults. In addition, there is an approach to treating couples based on attachment theory.

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 relationship.

Insecure attachment

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. People who are anxious or preoccupied with attachment may exhibit 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 style 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, p. 238)

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. 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. 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. 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.

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, p. 429).

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. 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)

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.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.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.

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% of people experience no significant changes in attachment styles over time. The fact that attachment styles do not change for a majority of people indicates working models are relatively stable. Yet, around 20–30% 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. Their proposal is supported by evidence that people who experience negative life events also tend to experience changes in attachment styles.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 schemas, (c) personality variables, and (d) combinations of personality variables and situational events.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.

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. Other mechanisms by which attachment styles may influence relationship satisfaction include emotional expressiveness,strategies for coping with conflict, and perceived support from partners.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.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. 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.

Affect regulation

Bowlby, in studies with children, observed that certain kinds of events trigger anxiety, and that people try to relieve their anxiety by seeking closeness and comfort from caregivers. 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 the individuals to engage in behaviors that bring them physically closer to caregivers. A similar dynamic occurs in adults in relationships where others care about them. 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. 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, or anxiety attachment, 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 situation shifts to a security-based strategy (because the partner finally responds positively) or when the person switches 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.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 have partners who are willing and able to respond positively to the person's request for closeness, so that they can use security-based strategies for dealing with their 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 who have partners who respond consistently and positively to requests for closeness allow individuals to have secure attachments, and in return they seek more support, in a generally relaxed way, while people whose partners are inconsistent in reacting positively or regularly reject requests for support find they need to use other attachment styles.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, though there may be other factors involved, as well.

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 and found that 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, pp. 120–121)

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 Feeney have examined the relationship between attachment and intimacy in detail. 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 Feeney 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. 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)

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. 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.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. 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.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)

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

After love

After dissolution of important romantic relationships people usually go though separation anxiety and grieving. Grief is a very important process because it allows for the acceptance of loss and makes it easier to move on. During this process people tend to use different strategies to cope. Securely attached individuals tend to look for support, which is the most effective coping strategy. Avoidantly attached individuals tend to devalue the relationships and to withdraw. Anxiously attached individuals are more likely to use emotionally focused coping strategies and pay more attention to the experienced distress (Pistole, 1996). After the end of the relationships securely attached individuals tend to have more positive overall emotional experience than insecurely attached individuals (Pistole, 1995).

Homosexual relationships

Ridge & Feeney (1998) have studied a group of gay and lesbians in Australian universities. Results showed that the frequency of attachment styles in the homosexual population was the same as in the heterosexual; at the same time attachment styles have predicted relationship variables in a similar way as in the heterosexual population. However, homosexual adult attachment styles were not related to childhood experiences with parents. Contradicting this last result, Robinson (1999) has found that in the lesbian population there was a link between attachment styles and early parenting, however, unlike in heterosexual females, attachment style was related to participant's relationship with their fathers.

Article/A Brief Overview of Adult Attachment Theory and Research

A Brief Overview of Adult Attachment Theory and Research
par R. Chris Fraley, 2010

(http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~rcfraley/attachment.htm)

Summary

Research on adult attachment is guided by the assumption that the same motivational system that gives rise to the close emotional bond between parents and their children is responsible for the bond that develops between adults in emotionally intimate relationships. The objective of this essay is to provide a brief overview of the history of adult attachment research, the key theoretical ideas, and a sampling of some of the research findings. This essay has been written for people who are interested in learning more about research on adult attachment.

Background: Bowlby's Theory of Attachment

The theory of attachment was originally developed by John Bowlby (1907 - 1990), a British psychoanalyst who was attempting to understand the intense distress experienced by infants who had been separated from their parents. Bowlby observed that separated infants would go to extraordinary lengths (e.g., crying, clinging, frantically searching) to prevent separation from their parents or to reestablish proximity to a missing parent. At the time of Bowlby's initial writings, 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.

Drawing on ethological theory, Bowlby postulated that these attachment behaviors, such as crying and searching, were adaptive responses to separation from with a primary attachment figure--someone who provides support, protection, and care. Because human infants, like other mammalian infants, cannot feed or protect themselves, they are dependent upon the care and protection of "older and wiser" adults. Bowlby argued that, over the course of evolutionary history, infants who were able to maintain proximity to an attachment figure via attachment behaviors would be more likely to survive to a reproductive age. According to Bowlby, a motivational system, what he called the attachment behavioral system, was gradually "designed" by natural selection to regulate proximity to an attachment figure.

The attachment behavior system is an important concept in attachment theory because it provides the conceptual linkage between ethological models of human development and modern theories on emotion regulation and personality. According to Bowlby, the attachment system essentially "asks" the following fundamental question: Is the attachment figure nearby, accessible, and attentive? If the child perceives the answer to this question to be "yes," he or she feels loved, secure, and confident, and, behaviorally, is likely to explore his or her environment, play with others, and be sociable. If, however, the child perceives the answer to this question to be "no," the child experiences anxiety and, behaviorally, is likely to exhibit attachment behaviors ranging from simple visual searching on the low extreme to active following and vocal signaling on the other (see Figure 1). These behaviors continue until either the child is able to reestablish a desirable level of physical or psychological proximity to the attachment figure, or until the child "wears down," as may happen in the context of a prolonged separation or loss. In such cases, Bowlby believed that young children experienced profound despair and depression.

Individual Differences in Infant Attachment Patterns

Although Bowlby believed that the basic dynamics described above captured the normative dynamics of the attachment behavioral system, he recognized that there are individual differences in the way children appraise the accessibility of the attachment figure and how they regulate their attachment behavior in response to threats. However, it wasn't until his colleague, Mary Ainsworth (1913 – 1999), began to systematically study infant-parent separations that a formal understanding of these individual differences was articulated. Ainsworth and her students developed a technique called the strange situation--a laboratory paradigm for studying infant-parent attachment. In the strange situation, 12-month-old infants and their parents are brought to the laboratory and, systematically, separated from and reunited with one another. In the strange situation, most children (i.e., about 60%) behave in the way implied by Bowlby's "normative" theory. They become upset when the parent leaves the room, but, when he or she returns, they actively seek the parent and are easily comforted by him or her. Children who exhibit this pattern of behavior are often called secure. Other children (about 20% or less) are ill-at-ease initially, and, upon separation, become extremely distressed. Importantly, when reunited with their parents, these children have a difficult time being soothed, and often exhibit conflicting behaviors that suggest they want to be comforted, but that they also want to "punish" the parent for leaving. These children are often called anxious-resistant. The third pattern of attachment that Ainsworth and her colleagues documented is called avoidant. Avoidant children (about 20%) don't appear too distressed by the separation, and, upon reunion, actively avoid seeking contact with their parent, sometimes turning their attention to play objects on the laboratory floor.

Ainsworth's work was important for at least three reasons. First, she provided one of the first empirical demonstrations of how attachment behavior is patterned in both safe and frightening contexts. Second, she provided the first empirical taxonomy of individual differences in infant attachment patterns. According to her research, at least three types of children exist: those who are secure in their relationship with their parents, those who are anxious-resistant, and those who are anxious-avoidant. Finally, she demonstrated that these individual differences were correlated with infant-parent interactions in the home during the first year of life. Children who appear secure in the strange situation, for example, tend to have parents who are responsive to their needs. Children who appear insecure in the strange situation (i.e., anxious-resistant or avoidant) often have parents who are insensitive to their needs, or inconsistent or rejecting in the care they provide. In the years that have followed, a number of researchers have demonstrated links between early parental sensitivity and responsiveness and attachment security.

Adult Romantic Relationships

Although Bowlby was primarily focused on understanding the nature of the infant-caregiver relationship, he believed that attachment characterized human experience from "the cradle to the grave." It was not until the mid-1980's, however, that researchers began to take seriously the possibility that attachment processes may play out in adulthood. Hazan and Shaver (1987) were two of the first researchers to explore Bowlby's ideas in the context of romantic relationships. According to Hazan and Shaver, the emotional bond that develops between adult romantic partners is partly a function of the same motivational system--the attachment behavioral system--that gives rise to the emotional bond between infants and their caregivers. Hazan and Shaver noted that the relationship between infants and caregivers and the relationship between adult romantic partners share the following features:

• both feel safe when the other is nearby and responsive
• both engage in close, intimate, bodily contact
• both feel insecure when the other is inaccessible
• both share discoveries with one another
• both play with one another's facial features and exhibit a mutual fascination and preoccupation with one another
• both engage in "baby talk"

On the basis of these parallels, Hazan and Shaver argued that adult romantic relationships, like infant-caregiver relationships, are attachments, and that romantic love is a property of the attachment behavioral system, as well as the motivational systems that give rise to caregiving and sexuality.

Three Implications of Adult Attachment Theory

The idea that romantic relationships may be attachment relationships has had a profound influence on modern research on close relationships. There are at least three critical implications of this idea. First, if adult romantic relationships are attachment relationships, then we should observe the same kinds of individual differences in adult relationships that Ainsworth observed in infant-caregiver relationships. We may expect some adults, for example, to be secure in their relationships--to feel confident that their partners will be there for them when needed, and open to depending on others and having others depend on them. We should expect other adults, in contrast, to be insecure in their relationships. For example, some insecure adults may be anxious-resistant: they worry that others may not love them completely, and be easily frustrated or angered when their attachment needs go unmet. Others may be avoidant: they may appear not to care too much about close relationships, and may prefer not to be too dependent upon other people or to have others be too dependent upon them.

Second, if adult romantic relationships are attachment relationships, then the way adult relationships "work" should be similar to the way infant-caregiver relationships work. In other words, the same kinds of factors that facilitate exploration in children (i.e., having a responsive caregiver) should facilitate exploration among adults (i.e., having a responsive partner). The kinds of things that make an attachment figure "desirable" for infants (i.e., responsiveness, availability) are the kinds of factors adults should find desirable in romantic partners. In short, individual differences in attachment should influence relational and personal functioning in adulthood in the same way they do in childhood.

Third, whether an adult is secure or insecure in his or her adult relationships may be a partial reflection of his or her experiences with his or her primary caregivers. Bowlby believed that the mental representations or working models (i.e., expectations, beliefs, "rules" or "scripts" for behaving and thinking) that a child holds regarding relationships are a function of his or her caregiving experiences. For example, a secure child tends to believe that others will be there for him or her because previous experiences have led him or her to this conclusion. Once a child has developed such expectations, he or she will tend to seek out relational experiences that are consistent with those expectations and perceive others in a way that is colored by those beliefs. According to Bowlby, this kind of process should promote continuity in attachment patterns over the life course, although it is possible that a person's attachment pattern will change if his or her relational experiences are inconsistent with his or her expectations. In short, if we assume that adult relationships are attachment relationships, it is possible that children who are secure as children will grow up to be secure in their romantic relationships. Or, relatedly, that people who are secure as adults in their relationships with their parents will be more likely to forge secure relationships with new partners.

In the sections below I briefly address these three implications in light of early and contemporary research on adult attachment.

Do We Observe the Same Kinds of Attachment Patterns Among Adults that We Observe Among Children?

The earliest research on adult attachment involved studying the association between individual differences in adult attachment and the way people think about their relationships and their memories for what their relationships with their parents are like. Hazan and Shaver (1987) developed a simple questionnaire to measure these individual differences. (These individual differences are often referred to as attachment styles, attachment patterns, attachment orientations, or differences in the organization of the attachment system.) In short, Hazan and Shaver asked research subjects to read the three paragraphs listed below, and indicate which paragraph best characterized the way they think, feel, and behave in close relationships:

A. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, others want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

B. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.

C. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people away.

Based on this three-category measure, Hazan and Shaver found that the distribution of categories was similar to that observed in infancy. In other words, about 60% of adults classified themselves as secure (paragraph B), about 20% described themselves as avoidant (paragraph A), and about 20% described themselves as anxious-resistant (paragraph C).

Although this measure served as a useful way to study the association between attachment styles and relationship functioning, it didn't allow a full test of the hypothesis that the same kinds of individual differences observed in infants might be manifest among adults. (In many ways, the Hazan and Shaver measure assumed this to be true.) Subsequent research has explored this hypothesis in a variety of ways. For example, Kelly Brennan and her colleagues collected a number of statements (e.g., "I believe that others will be there for me when I need them") and studied the way these statements "hang together" statistically (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Brennan's findings suggested that there are two fundamental dimensions with respect to adult attachment patterns (see Figure 2). One critical variable has been labeled attachment-related anxiety. People who score high on this variable tend to worry whether their partner is available, responsive, attentive, etc. People who score on the low end of this variable are more secure in the perceived responsiveness of their partners. The other critical variable is called attachment-related avoidance. People on the high end of this dimension prefer not to rely on others or open up to others. People on the low end of this dimension are more comfortable being intimate with others and are more secure depending upon and having others depend upon them. A prototypical secure adult is low on both of these dimensions.

Brennan's findings are critical because recent analyses of the statistical patterning of behavior among infants in the strange situation reveal two functionally similar dimensions: one that captures variability in the anxiety and resistance of the child and another that captures variability in the child's willingness to use the parent as a safe haven for support (see Fraley & Spieker, 2003a, 2003b). Functionally, these dimensions are similar to the two-dimensions uncovered among adults, suggesting that similar patterns of attachment exist at different points in the life span.

In light of Brennan's findings, as well as taxometric research published by Fraley and Waller (1998), most researchers currently conceptualize and measure individual differences in attachment dimensionally rather than categorically. That is, it is assumed that attachment styles are things that vary in degree rather than kind. The most popular measures of adult attachment style are Brennan, Clark, and Shaver's (1998) ECR and Fraley, Waller, and Brennan's (2000) ECR-R--a revised version of the ECR. [Click here to take an on-line quiz designed to determine your attachment style based on these two dimensions.] Both of these self-report instruments provide continuous scores on the two dimensions of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. [Click here to learn more about self-report measures of individual differences in adult attachment.]

Do Adult Romantic Relationships "Work" in the Same Way that Infant-Caregiver Relationships Work?

There is now an increasing amount of research that suggests that adult romantic relationships function in ways that are similar to infant-caregiver relationships, with some noteworthy exceptions, of course. Naturalistic research on adults separating from their partners at an airport demonstrated that behaviors indicative of attachment-related protest and caregiving were evident, and that the regulation of these behaviors was associated with attachment style (Fraley & Shaver, 1998). For example, while separating couples generally showed more attachment behavior than nonseparating couples, highly avoidant adults showed much less attachment behavior than less avoidant adults. In the sections below I discuss some of the parallels that have been discovered between the way that infant-caregiver relationships and adult romantic relationships function.

Partner selection
Cross-cultural studies suggest that the secure pattern of attachment in infancy is universally considered the most desirable pattern by mothers (see van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999). For obvious reasons there is no similar study asking infants if they would prefer a security-inducing attachment figure. Adults seeking long-term relationships identify responsive caregiving qualities, such as attentiveness, warmth, and sensitivity, as most "attractive" in potential dating partners (Zeifman & Hazan, 1997). Despite the attractiveness of secure qualities, however, not all adults are paired with secure partners. Some evidence suggests that people end up in relationships with partners who confirm their existing beliefs about attachment relationships (Frazier et al., 1997).

Secure base and safe haven behavior
In infancy, secure infants tend to be the most well adjusted, in the sense that they are relatively resilient, they get along with their peers, and are well liked. Similar kinds of patterns have emerged in research on adult attachment. Overall, secure adults tend to be more satisfied in their relationships than insecure adults. Their relationships are characterized by greater longevity, trust, commitment, and interdependence (e.g., Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994), and they are more likely to use romantic partners as a secure base from which to explore the world (e.g., Fraley & Davis, 1997). A large proportion of research on adult attachment has been devoted to uncovering the behavioral and psychological mechanisms that promote security and secure base behavior in adults. There have been two major discoveries thus far. First and in accordance with attachment theory, secure adults are more likely than insecure adults to seek support from their partners when distressed. Furthermore, they are more likely to provide support to their distressed partners (e.g., Simpson et al., 1992). Second, the attributions that insecure individuals make concerning their partner's behavior during and following relational conflicts exacerbate, rather than alleviate, their insecurities (e.g., Simpson et al., 1996).

Avoidant Attachment and Defense Mechanisms
According to attachment theory, children differ in the kinds of strategies they use to regulate attachment-related anxiety. Following a separation and reunion, for example, some insecure children approach their parents, but with ambivalence and resistance, whereas others withdraw from their parents, apparently minimizing attachment-related feelings and behavior. One of the big questions in the study of infant attachment is whether children who withdraw from their parents--avoidant children--are truly less distressed or whether their defensive behavior is a cover-up for their true feelings of vulnerability. Research that has measured the attentional capacity of children, heart rate, or stress hormone levels suggests that avoidant children are distressed by the separation despite the fact that they come across in a cool, defensive manner.

Recent research on adult attachment has revealed some interesting complexities concerning the relationships between avoidance and defense. Although some avoidant adults, often called fearfully-avoidant adults, are poorly adjusted despite their defensive nature, others, often called dismissing-avoidant adults, are able to use defensive strategies in an adaptive way. For example, in an experimental task in which adults were instructed to discuss losing their partner, Fraley and Shaver (1997) found that dismissing individuals (i.e., individuals who are high on the dimension of attachment-related avoidance but low on the dimension of attachment-related anxiety) were just as physiologically distressed (as assessed by skin conductance measures) as other individuals. When instructed to suppress their thoughts and feelings, however, dismissing individuals were able to do so effectively. That is, they could deactivate their physiological arousal to some degree and minimize the attention they paid to attachment-related thoughts. Fearfully-avoidant individuals were not as successful in suppressing their emotions.

Are Attachment Patterns Stable from Infancy to Adulthood?

Perhaps the most provocative and controversial implication of adult attachment theory is that a person's attachment style as an adult is shaped by his or her interactions with parental attachment figures. Although the idea that early attachment experiences might have an influence on attachment style in romantic relationships is relatively uncontroversial, hypotheses about the source and degree of overlap between the two kinds of attachment orientations have been controversial.

There are at least two issues involved in considering the question of stability: (a) How much similarity is there between the security people experience with different people in their lives (e.g., mothers, fathers, romantic partners)? and (b) With respect to any one of these relationships, how stable is security over time?

With respect to this first issue, it appears that there is a modest degree of overlap between how secure people feel with their mothers, for example, and how secure they feel with their romantic partners. Fraley, for example, collected self-report measures of one's current attachment style with a significant parental figure and a current romantic partner and found correlations ranging between approximately .20 to .50 (i.e., small to moderate) between the two kinds of attachment relationships. [Click here to take an on-line quiz designed to assess the similarity between your attachment styles with different people in your life.]

With respect to the second issue, the stability of one's attachment to one's parents appears to be equal to a correlation of about .25 to .39 (Fraley, 2002). There is only one longitudinal study of which we are aware that assessed the link between security at age 1 in the strange situation and security of the same people 20 years later in their adult romantic relationships. This unpublished study uncovered a correlation of .17 between these two variables (Steele, Waters, Crowell, & Treboux, 1998).

The association between early attachment experiences and adult attachment styles has also been examined in retrospective studies. Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that adults who were secure in their romantic relationships were more likely to recall their childhood relationships with parents as being affectionate, caring, and accepting (see also Feeney & Noller, 1990).

Based on these kinds of studies, it seems likely that attachment styles in the child-parent domain and attachment styles in the romantic relationship domain are only moderately related at best. What are the implications of such findings for adult attachment theory? According to some writers, the most important proposition of the theory is that the attachment system, a system originally adapted for the ecology of infancy, continues to influence behavior, thought, and feeling in adulthood (see Fraley & Shaver, 2000). This proposition may hold regardless of whether individual differences in the way the system is organized remain stable over a decade or more, and stable across different kinds of intimate relationships.

Although the social and cognitive mechanisms invoked by attachment theorists imply that stability in attachment style may be the rule rather than the exception, these basic mechanisms can predict either long-run continuity or discontinuity, depending on the precise ways in which they are conceptualized (Fraley, 2002). Fraley (2002) discussed two models of continuity derived from attachment theory that make different predictions about long-term continuity even though they were derived from the same basic theoretical principles. Each model assumes that individual differences in attachment representations are shaped by variation in experiences with caregivers in early childhood, and that, in turn, these early representations shape the quality of the individual's subsequent attachment experiences. However, one model assumes that existing representations are updated and revised in light of new experiences such that older representations are eventually "overwritten." Mathematical analyses revealed that this model predicts that the long-term stability of individual differences will approach zero. The second model is similar to the first, but makes the additional assumption that representational models developed in the first year of life are preserved (i.e., they are not overwritten) and continue to influence relational behavior throughout the life course. Analyses of this model revealed that long-term stability can approach a non-zero limiting value. The important point here is that the principles of attachment theory can be used to derive developmental models that make strikingly different predictions about the long-term stability of individual differences. In light of this finding, the existence of long-term stability of individual differences should be considered an empirical question rather than an assumption of the theory.

Outstanding Questions and Future Directions for Research on Adult Attachment

There are a number of questions that current and future research on attachment needs to address. For example, it is probably the case that, while some romantic relationships are genuine attachment relationships, others are not. It will be necessary for future researchers to find ways to better determine whether a relationship is actually serving attachment-related functions. Second, although it is clear why attachment behavior may serve an important evolutionary function in infancy, it is not clear whether attachment serves an important evolutionary function among adults. Third, we still don't have a strong understanding of the precise factors that may change a person's attachment style. In the interest of improving people's lives, it will be necessary to learn more about the factors that promote attachment security and relational well-being.

© 2010 R. Chris Fraley