Attachment Theory 1: The Infancy Continuity

Photo courtesy of iriss.org.uk

Within the world of sex and sexuality, almost every aspect of how we understand ourselves ties back to how we connect to and view others, especially those we are close to. So, in order to truly comprehend the society in which we live, we must first understand the intricacies of attachment theory, which begins its influence on our lives far earlier than you might expect. At its core, attachment is described as “a deep and enduring emotional bond between two people in which each seeks closeness and feels more secure when in the presence of the attachment figure” (McLeod 1). In other words, attachment is a mutually beneficial bond shared between two people, one that defines our emotional wellbeing and health.

To think that the basis for these statements is found in any recent studies or experiments, though, would be a fundamentally flawed idea, as the beginnings for research into the world of modern attachment theory began all the way back in the 1930s’ (McLeod 2). John Bowlby began his career as a child psychologist in the Child Guidance Clinic for the Disturbed in London (McLeod 2), and throughout his life began to develop his own theories regarding the development of healthy versus maladjusted children. Bowlby concluded that the development of all individuals, as exemplified by his numerous patients throughout the years, was defined by the attachments we form with our primary caretakers during infancy, and that poor relationships with such individuals would lead to poor development (McLeod 2). This thought process could be explained through Bowlby’s patients’ behavior, who instinctively turned to figures of attachment or comfort when in distress (McLeod 2). Bowlby therefore classified attachment as an adaptive part of humans’ evolution, as attaching oneself to a caregiver increases one’s chances of survival (McLeod 2). When the option to rely on a caregiver was unavailable, or if said caregiver was found, in the child’s experience, to be unreliable, however, the infant was likely to develop in an unhealthy fashion, later rejecting affection or being poorly developed emotionally.

Adult-child attachment universally manifests itself as an adult or caregiver fulfilling the child’s needs, and a parent figure who performs their job inadequately, either through intentional lack of care or unintentional ineptitude, risks the healthy development of their offspring. Parenting is far from an easy job, though, and it’s hard to get right. In fact, many maladjusted children hail from loving and caring parents, who failed in the application of their affection, not merely for lack of trying. Attachment in infants is based entirely on the idea of sensitive responsiveness, the notion that it is not merely time spent together that enhances a bond, but the quality of that time (McLeod 3). In terms of a parent-child relationship, this translates to how effectively the parent figure is able to respond to the child’s signals and meet their expectations of care. A parent who consistently spends time with their child but fails to accurately read them, therefore being incapable of providing them with the care they desire, will never maintain a bond with the infant as well as one who, while spending less time with them, understands and responds to their signals more consistently (McLeod 3). When a child feels their needs are being met in full, they can often be found searching or turning to the figure of their attachment for aid in times of stress, a clear signal that the criteria for their sensitive responsiveness has been met by the caretaker. Infants are highly selective creatures, which is why they often clearly favor one parent over the other, and are capable of only forming one attachment, often with their primary caretaker, deeming others as irrelevant strangers or as potentially dangerous uncertainties (McLeod 3).

While the process of attachment is fairly open and diverse from child to child, many follow a general schedule of emotional development throughout the early months of their lives, and demonstrate similar behavior in response to healthy or unhealthy relationships. Overall, these instances of shared behavior are especially prominent in three types of situations, that being time spent with unknown individuals, time spent separated from the figure of attachment, and moments in which the infant feels it needs to make a decision (McLeod 5). The first example, or stranger anxiety, is born out of a dependence on the primary caretaker. Infants are generally unskilled at navigating their environment, and the being they depend on to guide them, who has now been replaced with an unknown entity, now leaves the child open to potential danger (McLeod 5). The second example, otherwise known as separation anxiety, is similar, as, whether a stranger is present or not, the individual the infant entrusts their entire existence to suddenly disappears. The child is completely dependent, and knows subconsciously it cannot survive on its own (McLeod 5). The last example, social referencing, once again demonstrates the infant’s reliance on the caretaker. They turn to the parent figure in order to establish a “secure base” (McLeod 5), essentially a more experienced individual the child can trust to act accordingly in the interest of their survival. While the baby is not well versed socially, they instinctively mimic the behavior of the parent, appearing at times to be independent, when they are merely copying those around them, unaware of what they are actually doing.

This shared behavior usually occurs in stages across the child’s development, which typically progresses through a series of 4 phases. An infant spends the first 6 weeks of its life as an asocial creature, emotionally incapable of forming strong bonds with other individuals (McLeod 6). However, the baby’s survival skills are in full swing during this period, and it will therefore rely on its social referencing to mimic the behavior of each creature that surrounds it, void of a primary caretaker. This is why a baby will often smile or laugh at anything said to it; it is trying to enhance its own chances of survival without knowing what exactly is going on around it socially (McLeod 6). The next stage of development finds the baby in a time of indiscriminate attachment, which lasts up until around the first 7 months of its life (McLeod 6). The baby still treats individuals as equals in terms of social referencing, but it is now actively searching for a primary figure of attachment. At around 3 months of age, the baby is capable of developing minor preferences for individuals they are familiar with, the candidates for the child’s eventual dependency (McLeod 6). Because the infant is searching for engagement and reliance, they will often become upset if social stimulus, such as an adult playing with them, is suddenly removed, as they are instinctively aware that bonding with another creature is the key to their survival (McLeod 6). During the next phase, usually occurring over a period of two months, children are then capable of forming specific attachments. They will at last select their figure of attachment, typically their primary caretaker, and will begin to develop separation and stranger anxiety for the first time (McLeod 6). Because babies no longer need to rely on everyone in order to survive, feeling their caretaker can defend them in full, they become suspicious of individuals or environments they are unfamiliar with, and panic if they find their attachment figure has disappeared. From the first 10 months and onwards, an infant is now capable of developing multiple attachments with different yet familiar individuals (McLeod 6). They feel they can rely on a select group of people as opposed to just their primary caretaker, but still experience a hierarchy of attachment which determines their reliance in stressful situations. Not every person the infant is attached to is equally important in its life, and the individual which responds best to the child’s signals will always hold the title of their primary figure of attachment (McLeod 6).

Beyond shared behavior, however, attachment varies drastically when observing individual children. Generally, though, psychologists discovered that almost every baby can be sorted into 4 groups, their placement based entirely off of their interactions with their primary caretaker. In 1978, psychologists launched the Strange Situations study (Huang 2), a program that monitored a group of infants in relation to their mothers, comparing this same group and their behavior when they then came into contact with a stranger. Mary Ainsworth, who served as the head of the research team, theorized that the emotional responses of infants in both similar and unknown social environments could demonstrate further consistencies in the universal development of childrens’ attachments (Huang 2). Infants participating in the study were placed into an unfamiliar room while in the presence of their mother and an unknown stranger, and were carefully monitored by observers in a separate location. Before giving the child the chance to familiarize themselves in the unfamiliar environment, the mother was instructed to leave the room. The stranger was told to then approach the baby and initiate contact until the mother’s return a few minutes later (Huang 2). 

The results of the study focused on three specific points in time during the study, that being the child’s interaction with the mother before she left, their level/type of interaction with the stranger, and their behavior when reunited with their mother (Huang 2). Afterwards, it was concluded that a majority of children embodied either avoidant, secure, ambivalent, or disorganized attachment styles (Huang 2). Avoidant children presented as emotionally disconnected from their primary caretaker, avoiding eye contact and physical touch with the mothers before they left the room. Following the beginning of the experiment, said infants displayed no extreme reactions to the separation, introduction to the stranger, or reunion with the mother, a surprising result considering the children were, in theory, relying on them for their survival. It is believed that avoidant infants reacted the way they did as a response to inept parenting at home, specifically environments in which their sensitive responsiveness was met inaccurately or not at all by the mother (Huang 2). In other words, the mothers were failing to respond to their child’s signals, not necessarily reflecting the effort they put into caring for them. For those that put in little effort, however, it was apparent their children were avoidant, as angry caretakers raised the majority of avoidant-presenting infants monitored in the experiment (Huang 2). Secure children were by far the healthiest of those examined during the study, and are believed to have received the most effective and emotionally beneficial care at home. Such infants were intimate with the caretaker, but had developed enough to explore independently, trusting their mother to save them if they ventured too far. While they displayed distress during the separation and were overjoyed during the reunion, their emotions presented as far less than extremes, something that cannot be said for the other groups of children (Huang 2). They were unhappy to be removed from their caretaker, but trusted them enough to believe they would eventually return, while also feeling they could maintain their own safety during the mother’s absence. Ambivalent children embodied in full the notion of “in-betweenness”, as they presented with traits present in both avoidant and secure infants (Huang 2). While ambivalent children clearly desired intimacy with their caretakers, their needs were coupled with a crippling anxiety that their mother would fail to properly comfort them. Because of this fear, such infants would actively avoid contact with their caretaker, yet would fall into hysterics as soon as they left the room (Huang 2). They were deeply afraid of the stranger, and relieved when the mother eventually returned. Interestingly enough, when the mother succeeded in accurately meeting the child’s needs, the infant felt validated, and immediately initiated intimacy (Huang 2). Ambivalent kids most likely had parents who responded accurately to their signals on occasion, but failed to do so on others, therefore leading the child to believe they could not consistently rely on them for their survival. When their connection was suddenly rekindled, they felt they could once again trust them, eventually facing dejection the next time the mother failed to understand them. Similarly to ambivalent children, those with disorganized attachment styles displayed mixed reactions to the aforementioned scenarios, and it is believed their mothers were doing a particularly terrible job of meeting the infant’s expectations while simultaneously putting in a great deal of effort to build a relationship (Huang 2). The obviously caring nature of the parent, coupled with their failure to meet the child’s needs, deeply confused their offspring, forcing them to rely on thoroughly inconsistent parental figures. Their behavior was erratic, and a majority of those with disorganized attachment styles were children that did not directly land in one of the other three groups.

Attachment theory is by far one of the most influential fields in the development of the human race, and, while this piece has focused almost entirely on the lives of infants, the bonds we form in our earliest days define the rest of our lives. It is a common theory that the types of relationships we have with our parents influence the relationship we have with our own children, and, at times, every other person we choose to attach ourselves to. Regardless of who we are now, though, as well as who we will become in the future, it’s clear we all begin our lives desiring the same thing, a connection. It is our deepest instinct, and we learn to pursue such relationships depending on how our first connection is handled by parental figures. It’s truly a frightening concept, that the earliest months decide the course of the next few decades in regards to our growth, so, in order to get a better understanding of the world we live in, we must look next to the research of attachment in adults.

Works Cited

McLeod, S. A. (2017, February 05). Attachment theory. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/attachment.html

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41, 49-67.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. Cardwell & H. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 3, pp. 1-94) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In C . M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 33-51). London: Routledge.

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's tie to his mother. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, 350-371.

Bowlby J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J., and Robertson, J. (1952). A two-year-old goes to hospital. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 46, 425–427.

Dollard, J. & Miller, N.E. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill

Harlow, H. F. & Zimmermann, R. R. (1958). The development of affective responsiveness in infant monkeys. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 102,501 -509.

Prior, V., & Glaser, D. (2006). Understanding attachment and attachment disorders: Theory, evidence and practice. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Schaffer, H. R., & Emerson, P. E. (1964). The development of social attachments in infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1-77.

Huang, S (2020, Nov 03). Attachment styles. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/attachment-styles.html

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baldwin, M.W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247-261.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment Styles Among Young Adults: A Test of a Four-Category Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Volume I. Attachment. London: Hogarth Press.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (p. 46–76). The Guilford Press.

Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 267–283.

Caron, A., Lafontaine, M., Bureau, J., Levesque, C., and Johnson, S.M. (2012). Comparisons of Close Relationships: An Evaluation of Relationship Quality and Patterns of Attachment to Parents, Friends, and Romantic Partners in Young Adults. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 44(4), 245-256.

George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1984). The Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.

Harlow, H. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 573-685.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1-2), 66-104.

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. W. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy. Ablex Publishing.

Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71(3), 684-689.