6.7 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attachment theory | 5/12 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T15:31:31.580137+00:00 | kb-cron |
=== Do infant attachments predict adult behaviour? === As might be expected from research that shows the short-term reliability of the SSP depends largely on the continuing stability of social background variables, the best-known studies to have researched the long-term effects/correlates of infant-caregiver bonds on grown-up functions have all failed to produce the kinds of results attachment theory predicts. This is especially true in studies that have controlled for the continuity and discontinuity of background variables experienced by the child while she or he was developing. One longitudinal study in Minnesota showed that, if background variables were properly taken into account, attachment security in infancy only accounted for 5% of the variability in social competence when the study-children had reached the age of nineteen. Two well-known German studies also failed to find any significant correlation between toddlers' security of attachment (as measured in the SSP) and a variety of measures of social relating after age 10. Long-term Israeli research also found that continuity in attachment representation correlated strongly with the stability of the caregiver's environment, and discontinuity with instability. Taken altogether, such findings demonstrate that, when studies using SSP measures include measures of an infant's social circumstances, there can be a strong link to grown-up outcomes—accounting for half the variance in the 'Minnesota' longitudinal study when, by themselves, attachment measures account for as little as one twentieth of the variance.
=== From a theory of infancy to a theory of caregiving === Over decades, the weakness of the empirical data supporting Bowlby's original observational claims about infants has necessitated a greater emphasis in attachment theory on caregiving. According to his first formulation, Bowlby had argued that the attachment behavioural system (ABS) of modern infants evolved to protect infants against danger: when a Stone Age baby was in peril, it would maximise its chances of surviving by seeking proximity to its mother, and, as a result so-called attachment behaviours would have evolved, the better to maintain a baby's closeness to their mother in times of illness, danger, or stress. However, the ABS cannot have been what helped to guarantee a baby's survival, given that, according to Bowlby, the ABS is not fully functional until after a child turns three: it is around 30 months of age that a "mutual" goal-corrected partnership between child and caregiver becomes stabilised. Furthermore, in Bowlby's theory, the attachment behaviours stereotypically 'emitted' during early infancy cannot be adjusted to circumstances. Hence, even by Bowlby's own lights, the ABS cannot have ensured infants' survival during the pre-human era, nor in ours. Rather, infant security must have depended on the vigilance, responsiveness, and intelligence of caregivers, or what attachment theorists now call the caregiving behavioural system. This renders superfluous Bowlby's evolutionary rationale for the presence of a specially evolved ABS in infants. Attachment theory's initial attractiveness stemmed from the scientific credentials it lent to post-World War Two child-centeredness. And, in that vein, its message was principally aimed at caregivers and policy-makers. Even the SSP, while supposedly focused on infant behaviour, is, as Marga Vicedo observes, primarily used to identify better and worse kinds of caregiving. In this light, and the light of careful empirical research, the status of attachment classifications is now probably best seen as valuably descriptive of a range of different kinds of infant-caregiver bond in certain cultures, not as independently predictive nor as universally explanatory.
== Attachment patterns ==
The strength of a child's attachment behaviour in a given circumstance does not indicate the "strength" of the attachment bond. Some insecure children will routinely display very pronounced attachment behaviours, while many secure children find that there is no great need to engage in either intense or frequent shows of attachment behaviour. Individuals with different attachment styles have different beliefs about romantic love period, availability, trust capability of love partners, and love readiness.
=== Secure attachment ===
A child who is securely attached to their parent will explore and play freely while the caregiver is present, using them as a "secure base" from which to explore. The child will engage with the stranger when the caregiver is present and may be visibly upset when the caregiver departs, but will be happy to see the caregiver on their return. The child feels confident that the caregiver is available and will be responsive to their attachment needs and communications.
=== Anxious-ambivalent attachment === Children classified as having anxious-ambivalent attachment show a form of insecure attachment which is also sometimes called "resistant attachment". Ambivalent/Resistant (C) showed distress even before separation, and were clingy and difficult to comfort on the caregiver's return. They showed either signs of resentment in response to the absence (C1 subtype), or signs of helpless passivity (C2 subtype). Hans et al. have expressed concern that "ambivalent attachment remains the most poorly understood of Ainsworth's attachment types". In particular, the relationship between ambivalent/resistant (C) and disorganisation (D) is still to be clarified. However, researchers agree that the Anxious-Ambivalent/Resistant strategy is a response to unpredictably responsive caregiving, and that the displays of anger or helplessness towards the caregiver on reunion can be regarded as a conditional strategy for maintaining the availability of the caregiver by preemptively taking control of the interaction.
=== Anxious-avoidant attachment === A child with the anxious-avoidant insecure attachment pattern will avoid or ignore the caregiver, showing little emotion when the caregiver departs or returns. The child will not explore very much, regardless of who is there. Infants classified as anxious-avoidant (A) represented a puzzle in the early 1980s. They did not exhibit distress upon separation, and either ignored the caregiver upon return (A1 subtype) or showed a tendency to approach, with some tendency to ignore or turn away from the caregiver (A2 subtype). Ainsworth and Bell theorised that the apparently unruffled behaviour of avoidant infants is in fact a mask for distress, a hypothesis later supported by studies of their heart rates.