Attachment Theory

Have you often found yourself stuck in unfulfilling or destructive relationships you know you should leave but you just can’t seem to escape?  Or find yourself keep making the same mistakes, either chasing after someone who won’t commit or sabotaging perfectly good relationships, for no clear reason?

Rules of Attachment

Do any research trying to answer these questions, chances are, you’ll come across attachment theory. This research developed in the 1950’s is based on a pretty straight-forward concept: it argues how a child bonds with its mother sets the template for how it bonds with others.

Pioneered by English psychologist and psychoanalyst John Bowlby and following on from the work of American psychologist Harry Harlow, attachment theory explores the fundamental importance of the maternal bond.

Whereas previously many evolutionary psychologists argued that the principal function of early years care was to respond to basic physiological and nutritional needs, Bowlby’s (and Harlow’s) research demonstrated that a secure emotional bond for a child was just as important if not more so to subsequent adult development. One of the examples illustrated in Bowlby’s work was the life outcomes of children in institutional care, who despite having adequate food and shelter, would often struggle to function emotionally and integrate in later life.

Just as Freud argued that our unconscious shapes and directs our conscious decision making, attachment theory argues our childhood connection to our mother shapes and drives all subsequent significant romantic relationships. This maternal bond sets the template on which all other relationships are built. A student of Bowlby, Mary Ainsworth went on to classify the maternal attachment as one of three types, either secure, anxious or avoidant (a fourth type, disorganised, was added by subsequent researchers, Mary Main and Judith Solomon).

All this research was then picked up by social psychologists Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver who in the 1980’s applied this work to adult romantic relationships. It outlined both how important attachment strategies were to relational contentment, and in turn how mismatched or anxious / avoidant strategies manifest in later life. Their research illustrated that while some individuals are secure both in starting and ending relations, some are constantly petrified the relationship is going to end, while others become emotionally overwhelmed if they can’t see an exit door.

Individuals who have insecure attachment issues will often look back at a prior relationship and they can’t believe they behaved in such a manner. When later they try to describe it, they will often talk as if they were possessed, as if some power came over them that they were unable to control. Attachment issues have an instinctive, almost primal feel. Work by Bowlby and others argued they represent a pre-verbal or even pre-conscious strategy built to defend yourself against the existential fear of abandonment. Furthermore, this inter-connection of behaviours, feelings and thoughts can often lay dormant for years only to be triggered by a significant romantic relationship.

If all this sounds faintly ridiculous or melodramatic then there is a good chance you haven’t got an adverse attachment style.  However, if it rings true, awareness of your attachment style and how it impacts on your romantic relationship can be major step forward in breaking out of this pattern.

 

Find My Attachment Style 

Although there are many quizzes that aim to reveal your attachment style, perhaps the most effective (and the shortest) was the one developed by the two original researchers, Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver. Their questionnaire, which can be used for yourself or your partner, had only three options:

A: 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.

B: 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.

C: 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.

For those that selected option A this denotes a secure style of attachment, in which loving and trusting relationships can be developed without triggering deeper fears. They can show vulnerability and are capable of intimacy. Crucially as well as being able and open to building new relationships, they are able to terminate a partnership if they feel it is not working or has become destructive.

Option B signifies an anxious attachment style, which is categorised both by a deep need for a relationship and equally a deep fear such relationship will be terminated. There is often a pre-occupation or even an obsession over their partner, which often manifests in mistrust, constant criticism and other counter-productively hostile behaviour. This style normally results from volatility in the early years of maternal connection.

Finally, option C refers to avoidant attachment style. This defensive mechanism believes the best way not to get hurt is limit or protect oneself from intense emotional intimacy. They can feel quickly overwhelmed or suffocated within relationships, and often will have periods where they are emotionally unavailable or physically absent. Often such individuals will have a mother who was strongly indifferent and emotionally absent during childhood.  It is worth noting however, while they are often presented as polar opposites, at the heart of both avoidant and anxious style is a deep need for connection intertwined with a deep fear of abandonment.

 

Complications and Limitations

For some individuals and couples, attachment theory is a real game-changer but for others it may be less so. Indeed, while many find attachment theory really opens their eyes to the forces and drives the shape attraction, there is always a danger of looking at anything, particularly complex relationships, through just one lens. That is not to say an understanding of this theory cannot radically alter how you behave and communicate with each other: it can. But, at the end of the day, it is a theory not fact.

Equally, it’s important not to view attachment issues in a binary, monolithic manner. Individuals can have different intensities of attachment, which can vary according to age, relationship or general happiness. There may be weak anxiousness that goes more or less undetected until you become involved with a strong avoidant. Or perhaps you had a history of low-level avoidance that has become more pronounced as you have got older and the pressure to find a long-term partner increases. Everything to do with humans is complicated and tailored to your unique choices and experiences in and outside of childhood, and attachment styles are no different.

And finally, no one style is necessarily better than others, and no one type can guarantee happiness or unhappiness. How and who we are as unique and complex individuals and how are needs are met or unmet has an influence beyond just attachment.

 

Love vs Attachment

What is love anyway?
Does anybody love anybody anyway?
Whoa, whoa, whoa
Howard Jones

Both attachment theory and Howard Jones’ 1983 synth-pop hit touch on some deeply profound issues which go straight to the heart of what it means to be human. Is love simply a biological construct, a trap, a deception to blind us to the evolutionary dictates and the mechanics of reproduction? Is it just programmed behaviour encoded by parents who themselves were encoded by their parents? Or is it something else, something unique, something resplendent?

You may start to question, as you read through these following chapters on attachment, what is the difference between being in love and simply responding to an attachment style? The standard response will argue that while love triggers feelings towards the other person, attachment issues are more focused on how it makes you feel. For example, you feel secure and happy because you are in love with John, as opposed to, you feel secure and happy because you are in love, with someone who happens to be John.

Yet what we feel and why we feel what we feel is an elaborate maze, a combination of unconscious triggers, personal experiences, physiological and cultural forces. Consequently, it may not be so clear cut to determine whether these new feelings are about them or basically all about you. Or, as is more probable, just a mish-mash of both.

 

It’s Not All About Attachment

Attachment theory has a considerable amount of research to validate its claims, however there is a counter body of both research and vocal researchers who argue strongly against its key theme, namely that early years’ maternal bond is the primary determinant how we connect with others.

Some researchers such as Steven Pinker take the position that genetic influences on personality shape how we connect, while others argue the nature of how we connect is shaped by personality or our social class. For example, some critique Bowlby’s observation of the life outcomes of children in institution care which could be contrasted with children who attend boarding school from a young age (as Bowlby himself did). Many commentators have drawn attention to the gender distribution of styles, with women tending towards anxiety, men towards avoidance.

A danger with stressing the importance of the maternal bond is that it can downplay the importance of other key caregivers. Some children experienced a troubled dynamic with their mother yet may have a deep and loving connection to their father, or their grandparents or wider family or even with a sibling. Equally there are individuals who experience secure bond at home yet face rejection or abandonment from peers or romantic partners.

Furthermore, just as it is important to understand what attachment style is, it is equally important to understand what it is not. Some articles equate secure attachment with higher levels of emotional intelligence or empathy and imply a secure style is superior to an insecure one. Yet as a practising couple therapist I would strongly push back against such an interpretation. I encounter many individuals with a secure attachment style who have the empathy and emotional intelligence of a concrete block. And equally, many insecure types display a deep understanding of themselves and others. Those with avoidant style can be tremendously supportive, resilient and resistant to peer-pressure or groupthink.

At the end of the day, does it really matter whether we are shaped by early years’ maternal bond or genetics or personality or all of the above? We’re all just trying to carve out a little bit of happiness, and if this theory helps you make some sense of it all, if these strategies help keep you connected, then fantastic.