Attachment Theory
In the field of psychology, human relationships have always been a primary focus of research. One facet of human relationships that is of particular interest to psychological researchers is how humans respond to hurt, separation from loved ones, or perceived threats within relationships. The study of this aspect of human relationship dynamics is referred to as attachment theory, and is based on the tenet that common attachment behaviours and emotions are adaptive rather than innate. According to attachment theory, emotional attachment patterns or styles are developed in infancy as a result of a child’s relationship with his or her primary caregivers, or with at least one principal attachment figure.
Our current understanding of attachment theory is built on the work of developmental psychologists John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. The first time that a cohesive theoretical framework appeared was in the early 1960s as a result of five papers on infant-caregiver dynamics by Bowlby. But it was Ainsworth’s empirical study of infants and their mothers in Uganda in the 1950s that showed the practical relevance of Bowlby’s theory and developed it into what is now the widely accepted attachment theory we have today.
Through in-depth observations of infant-caregiver relationships in Uganda, Ainsworth concluded that early patterns of human attachment formed in infancy shape individuals’ expectations in relationships in their adult lives. If a caregiver is sensitive and responsive in social interactions with an infant, then the infant will view the caregiver as a safe and secure base off of which to explore the world. This leads to adult attachment that is healthy and secure. However, if an infant is raised in an insensitive or unpredictable caregiving relationship, that individual often demonstrates unhealthy attachment patterns later in life.
From this research and further studies in Baltimore, Maryland in the United States, Ainsworth was able to identify three main attachment styles that result from early interactions of an infant with its caregiver: secure, anxious-avoidant insecure and anxious-ambivalent insecure. The majority of infants in the studies—an estimated 60 to 70 percent—demonstrated secure attachment styles. A child who is securely attached will explore freely while the caregiver is around and will even engage with strangers in that context. However, if the caregiver is not present, the child will not interact with strangers. Another defining mark of secure attachment is that the child will be visibly upset when the caregiver leaves and then happy to see them upon return. Thus, the presence of the caregiver can easily alleviate any anxieties the child may have. This secure attachment results from a relationship in which the child’s needs are consistently being met by the primary caregivers.
Anxious-avoidant insecure attachment, on the other hand, is characterised by the child avoiding or ignoring the caregiver while exploring their environment. They show little emotion when the caregiver departs or returns, and do not seek out the caregiver when in distress. Furthermore, infants with anxious-avoidant insecure attachment have no inhibition when it comes to interacting with strangers, and show little difference in their reactions to caregivers or strangers. This type of attachment is a subconscious protective mechanism by children with caregivers who are consistently unresponsive to their needs. Rather than face rejection by their caregivers, the children mask their distress with apparent apathy and direct attention away from their unfulfilled desire for closeness. Around 15 percent of infants in Ainsworth’s studies demonstrated anxious-avoidant insecure attachment.
Then there is anxious-ambivalent insecure attachment, also called insecure resistant attachment. Here children exhibit a mixture of both clinginess and resistance to their caregivers. An example of this is how the child reacts when the primary caregiver leaves the room. The child becomes extremely distressed and desires the caregiver’s return. However, when that attachment figure does come back, the child will resist any initiation of attention on the part of the caregiver. Thus, when distressed, the children become very upset but are almost impossible to soothe. This is a result of caregivers providing inconsistent levels of responsiveness to their children’s needs, and was shown to occur in around 15 percent of study participants.
There is an additional—although unofficial—fourth category called disorganised attachment in which a child exhibits a mixed attachment style. The category came about because of the difficulties acknowledged by Ainsworth and her colleagues in fitting all infant behaviour into such clearly delineated classifications. This is especially challenging in situations where children have gone through several primary caregivers, such as with foster children or when there are two primary caregivers with significantly different parenting styles. But the ‘D’ classification, as it is referred to, has been criticised by many as being too broad and encompassing, a weakness that has not yet been resolved by attachment theory researchers. However, even when a child is given a disorganised attachment classification, they are still designated with a primary attachment style derived from the three main categories. It is thought that this primary attachment tendency will most directly affect the child’s adult relationship behaviours.