Attachment Theory began with the work of John Bowlby in the 50s, who posited that humans have an innate need present from birth for attachment and connection with others, and of most importance is the relationship with the primary caregiver, typically the mother (in line with the more rigid gender roles of the time).

He observed that the quality and attunement of attention that an infant child receives from their parents, especially in the first few years of life, has a profound and lasting effect on their psychosocial, cognitive and physiological development.

The need for attention and connection is a survival instinct, babies are entirely dependent on their caregivers and abandonment would mean certain death, so engaged attention from their parents is soothing and builds an innate sense of security, and a lack of or inconsistent engagement keeps the baby in a state of distress and hyper-vigilance.

In this formative period babies begin to develop characteristic ways of coping with and responding to interactions with their parents, forming the blueprint of their relational framework and their emotional regulation patterns. At an unconscious level, children develop beliefs about the world and their place in it, they form concepts and predictions, rules and strategies, and patterns of emotional arousal in attempts to have their attachment needs met.

Mary Ainsworth developed the theory further in the 70s with her “Strange Situation” experiment. Infants of around a year old were put with their mother in a room and were free to explore. A stranger entered the room and approached the infant. The mother would then exit the room, leaving the child alone with the stranger for a time before returning. Mother and child would be closely observed through this whole process, and three distinct patterns of reaction emerged from this study, secure, anxious and avoidant.

Children showing secure attachment behaviours would initially explore the room with curiosity and confidence, while also seeking proximity and engagement with their mother. The mother represented a safe and secure base from which to explore the world, and a safe haven to return to wherever a need for reassurance arose. The children showed variable interest in the stranger, some distress when the mother left them alone, and some heightened arousal on the mother’s return which was quickly soothed through their mutual attention and affection. This demonstrates a fundamental attitude of trust and security, afforded by the consistency and reliability of their safe attachment to their mother.

Children in the anxious (also known as ambivalent) category would show seemingly contradictory behaviours, at times being resistant to their mother’s attentions and at others showing more connection-seeking behaviours, but these were all characterised by heightened emotional arousal. The children were markedly more distressed when left alone with the stranger, and upon the mother’s return the lack of attunement between her and baby was evident, the children would cry, hit out, avoid eye contact with their mothers, and generally take a lot longer to settle after the experience.

These children hadn’t received consistent and appropriate nurturing, and one or both parents may process and express their emotions in volatile and unpredictable ways, Anxiously attached children lack an internal sense of safety and have no basis to effectively calm, soothe and find comfort in their connection with their mothers.

Those children characterised by an avoidant (also known as dismissive) attachment showed little interest in their mother or their surroundings, minimal distress and also little to no interest in the stranger when left alone with them, and no relief or recognition when their mother returned to the room. The children had already learned that bids for connection and displays of emotion will be ignored, punished or invalidated, they learned to cope with distress by numbing and self-soothing, and they do not perceive caregivers as potential sources of comfort or safety.

Later researchers, Main and Solomon, determined that there is a fourth category of responses that don’t fit in with the others, this they labelled disorganized (also known as fearful avoidant) Attachment. These children showed even more bizarre and contradictory behaviours, with frequent freeze responses and non-sequential behaviours that seem to lack goals and purpose, and displayed jumbled and disconnected emotional states. These children were deemed to have experienced more severe attachment-related traumas, being raised in a volatile and unsafe environment in which they were forced to depend on an attachment figure that scared them.

Origins of Attachment Theory

Developments

Secure Attachment: Estimates vary but it is surmised that roughly 50% of the population has a secure attachment style. They had a stable upbringing with parents that were attuned to their emotions and needs and did their best to provide nurture and support.

Their parents could manage and express their own emotions in healthy ways and served as positive role models for the child’s development, so the child grew up learning that people are generally safe and trustworthy, that help and support and love is available to them and that they are worthy of it. As adults they have healthy concepts and expectations of relationships and appropriate boundaries, and a largely positive self-image.

Anxious/Ambivalent Attachment: Those with an anxious attachment style generally had one or both parents that were inconsistent caregivers, at times being “good enough” and at others being either emotionally unavailable or overbearing. The home environment was likely volatile, with parents that did not have healthy ways of relating to each other or to their child, they were invalidating of their child’s emotions and had inappropriate boundaries.

One or both parents may have “parentified” the child by depending on them for emotional support or having unreasonable expectations regarding the child’s role in the home. The child may have had a lack of privacy and autonomy, and conflicting messages about how they should act and what they could expect from their parents.

As adults, the anxiously attached tend to have a low self-image and a pervasive fear of abandonment and of not being good enough or worthy of love. They learned unhealthy and manipulative ways of expressing emotions and getting their needs met, they may frequently act out and push others away out of feeling insecure in relationships and not having appropriate models of what a healthy relationship should look like. In their careers and social lives they may burn themselves out in the pursuit of trying to gain the approval of others, but they never feel like their efforts are enough due to this deeply rooted lack of self-esteem.

Avoidant/Dismissive Attachment: The avoidantly attached typically grew up in homes where their emotional needs were largely invalidated or ignored. One or both parents could have been smothering in their attention, micro-managing the child without giving them a chance to develop their autonomy or an understanding of their own emotional processes.

This would cause them to grow up feeling like intimacy is oppressive and overwhelming. Or one or both parents could have been emotionally unavailable or even physically absent, having strict rules and showing little warmth or positive regard, and treating emotional displays as weakness. This would teach the child that it is pointless or even dangerous to have and express emotions and needs, and many grow up to become numb and disconnected from their own feelings.

As adults they tend to have a low self-image and a difficulty forming close relationships. It’s not that they don’t want intimacy or closeness, but at an instinctive level it feels threatening to them, so they tend to keep others at a distance and push people away if they do get too close. They tend to be stubbornly independent and self-sufficient and have little trust that there is help and support for them in the world.

Disorganized/Fearful Avoidant: It was previously thought that only the most extreme trauma creates a disorganized attachment, but it is now accepted that there is a higher incidence of this attachment type than previously thought and more nuanced circumstances that create it. Certainly the child did not have any safe and consistent caregivers, there would have been a blend of any of the circumstances described above.

One or both parents may have had issues with addiction and/or mental health, and the child may have been exposed to a number of Adverse Childhood Experiences such as poverty, incarceration, violence, divorce and so on. Fearful avoidant adults may exhibit traits of both anxious and avoidant attachments, they crave closeness and intimacy but also keenly fear abandonment and rejection, and have a deep-seated belief that they are unworthy of love. They may go from being enamoured with someone to the point of obsession, to completely severing emotional ties to them, and back again in rapid fire. They may feel safer alone while also feeling lonely, and being in intimate relationships can stir up a maelstrom of conflicting and uncomfortable thoughts and feelings.

In the next post we will discuss Edward Tronick's (1975) "Still Face" experiment, and how early childhood interactions lay the foundations for the development of the nervous system and patterns of emotional response to triggering situations.

Attachment Styles Overview