EARLY ATTACHMENT AND ADULT RELATIONSHIPS

The influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships, including the role of an internal working model

THE EFFECTS OF EARLY ATTACHMENT ON ADULT RELATIONSHIPS

BACKGROUND

Attachment theory is primarily a psychodynamic theory. For example, Bowlby observed that there was a direct link between the pathology of a Mother and disturbances in the child. Like many psychodynamic theories, attachment theory also has evolutionary principles. For example, Bowlby thought that the inability to form successful relationships would affect an individual’s chances in life as they would be less likely to be able to reproduce. Even if they did, relationship difficulties would affect their survival and the quality and health of any offspring they had. This is demonstrated by Bowlby’s belief that attachment experiences had long-lasting effects (the continuity hypothesis) that tended to persist across the lifespan.

 A01 DESCRIPTION OF THEORY

.Many Psychologists believe that the quality and pattern of adult relationships are related to the quality of childhood care. This theory is based on John Bowlby’s attachment theory.

 The core elements of Bowlby’s theory are that infants become attached to individuals who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with them and remain consistent caregivers during a critical period in their development (from birth to two and a half years of age). This is known as the continuity hypothesis, i.e., that experiences in childhood continue into adulthood.

 Bowlby (1973) proposed that when a child is confident that an attachment figure is available, he is less prone to fear and more likely to trust others. Moreover, suppose the attachment figure is responsive and protective while at the same time respecting the need to grow and explore the environment. In that case, the infant will develop positive perceptions, emotions, and expectations that will enable them to succeed in later relationships because they will view other people the same way their caregiver treats them. So, they will approach people with trust and optimism. Bowlby believed this early parental care formed the prototype for future relationships by developing a healthy internal working model (a kind self-schema) that views itself as loving, deserving and dependable. Bowlby said when we form our primary attachment, we also make a mental representation of what a relationship is (internal working model) which we then use for all other relationships in the future i.e. friendships, working and romantic relationships.

However, suppose the caregiver/parent rejects or ignores calls for comfort and attention and prohibits exploratory activity. In that case, the infant is more likely to construct an internal working model of himself as unworthy and ineffectual (John Bowlby, 1969).

 Bowlby’s research focused primarily on poor attachment and delinquency. Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver extended attachment theory research on adult romantic relationships in the late 1980s. Four attachment styles were identified in adults: secure, anxious-preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant and fearful-avoidant. These roughly correspond to infant classifications: secure, insecure-ambivalent, insecure-avoidant and disorganised/disoriented.

RESEARCH

Hazan and Shaver hypothesis is supported by their research which used a love quiz to show correlations between attachment style and relationship satisfaction. 

Hazan and Shaver’s study did have some plus points a large sample and some significant results on replication, however….

INTERNAL VALIDITY:

In Hazan and Shaver’s study, participants had to classify their attachment style by retrospectively analysing their childhood experiences. It is highly unlikely that individuals could remember their early attachment experiences as childhood amnesia, also called infantile amnesia, is the inability of adults to retrieve episodic memories before the age of 2–4 years. For the first 1–2 years of life, brain structures such as the limbic system, which holds the hippocampus and the amygdala and is involved in memory storage, are not yet fully developed. This means that participants in the study would have relied on their parental recollections of their infancy or made it up!

 This is a sensitive area; as a result, many parents would want to appear socially desirable and present themselves as wonderful caregivers. So again, caution must be applied to results and interpretation of how childhood affects relationships, as the classification validity was methodologically unsound.

EXTERNAL VALIDITY/POPULATION VALIDITY:

 The sampling process in Hazan and Shaver’s study has external validity issues as not only did it recruit Canadian individuals so it was culturally biased, but the participants were self-selecting.: Maybe only a certain type of individual would read the Rocky Mountain News and maybe only a certain type of Rocky Mountain news reader would respond to the socially sensitive subject of childhood attachment, e.g., a reflective empathetic type. This means we can only apply the theory to a small sample of people. Volunteer sampling is a poor way of selecting participants since you are not getting a cross-section of the public.  Using this sampling technique, for example, you will get people with an ‘axe to grind’ or extremes of experience or opinion.

MIXED EVIDENCE

Another weakness of this theory is that the evidence is mixed.  For example, some studies do appear to support continuity and so provide evidence to support internal working models. For example, Bailey et al (2007) concluded that the early attachment style of mother is passed on to their children and then subsequently to future generations raising the possibility that attachment styles and parenting skills run in families.

 Moreover, longitudinal studies such as Simpson’s and Sroufe’s show that securely attached children have more successful relationships.

 Other well-known examples of supporting research in this area are McCarthy’s (1999) correlational study on women who had experienced insecure attachments as children. She found that this correlated with problems in relationships.

 However, Zimmerman (2000) assessed infant attachment type and adolescent attachment to parents. The findings indicated very little relationship between infant and adolescent attachment quality.  This is a problem because this outcome is not what would be expected if the internal working models were important in development.

 CAUSE AND EFFECT: 

Much of the research on the influence of childhood on relationships is non-experimental and mostly in the form of questionnaires that are then correlated; case studies are also common. This is because there would be too many variables to control in an experimental study, which would also be unethical. Instead of using experiments, researchers use less valid and reliable research methods such as questionnaires and interviews.

 We must be careful about applying a causal link with non-experimental research because non-experimental researchers cannot show cause-and-effect relationships, so caution must be applied to the belief that childhood attachment affects adult romantic relationships because other variables have not been controlled for.

 For example, a serious limitation of the continuity hypothesis is its failure to recognise the profound influences of social class, gender, ethnicity, and culture on personality development. These factors, independent of a mother's sensitivity, can be as significant as the quality of the early attachment.
ALTERNATIVE THEORIES

Research has demonstrated that social and economic factors have a powerful influence on development. The strongest predictor of adult depression or anxiety in many cultures is growing up in a disadvantaged social class. For example, Mississippi has a larger proportion of minority residents living in poverty than North Dakota, and the incidence of depression in Mississippi is three times that of North Dakota, according to the Centres for Disease Control.

 Therefore, results obtained by Simpson and Sroufe may also be related to social and economic factors. Or it could also be as Kagan hypothesised, that babies are born with innate social and unsociable temperaments, which directs the quality of a caregiver's parenting style. Difficult babies cause insecure parenting (because they are grumpy) and not vice versa, as most commonly inferred.

 OTHER REASONS FOR RELATIONSHIPS BREAK UP

Other variables may cause poor relationships. Marital and relationship dysfunction is not rare in Western society. 40% of marriages end, and one could assume a proportion of intact marriages are unhappy. Surely, childhood experiences are not solely to blame then. Modern living is very stressful and illness, loss of attraction, lacks rewards for example, may be contributory.

 VALIDITY OF THE STRANGE SITUATION AS MEASURING TOOL

The trouble with all the research listed above is that it relies on the strange situation (SS) as the tool for measuring attachment. This tool is not without criticisms. Many psychologists believe that the strange situation is not a scientific way to measure attachment anyway as the validity of some of Ainsworth’s techniques and categories was questionable; she didn’t include disorganised attachment, and she operationalised resistance very poorly, it changed meaning when interpreted by Japanese researchers and many psychologists are unsure if resistant parenting is confusing or clingy.

 Therefore, we cannot assume that the study participants who used the strange situation had valid assessments of their attachment type. This means that findings by Simpson and Sroufe cannot conclusively support the idea that early attachment style leads to, for example, fear of intimacy in close relationships. Fear of intimacy in close relationships could be down to autism, high testosterone or other factors not connected to up-bringing.

CULTURAL BIAS

The relationship continuity hypothesis is culturally biased as it assumes that people in all cultures are free to have short-term relationships or divorce their spouses. Most of the world has arranged marriages with low rates of divorce. According to this theory, this would mean that collectivist countries have more securely attached children. It could also mean, that leaving or staying in an arranged marriage has very little do with relationship satisfaction and childhood experience and more do with the values and customs of collectivist colures, e.g., supporting your family before your individualistic desires.  This means that this theory is ethnocentric and low in ecological validity.

 ALPHA MALE:

 This theory is beta-biased, as it does not distinguish between male and female relationship experiences. The fact that there may be important gender differences is supported as more males are classified as avoidantly attached than females. Avoidant attachment types are very similar to men with extremely high testosterone levels, which might explain why more males fall into this category. e.g., extremely independent, self-directed, and often uncomfortable with intimacy. They are also commitment-phobes and experts at rationalising their way out of intimate situations.  There are many similarities between avoidantly attached individuals and alpha males. This suggests that attachment style may be influenced by gender and thus nature and not the attachment style of their caregivers.

 GENDER BIAS

Yet, one could argue that being classified as avoidantly attached would have more repercussions for females. According to evolutionary theory, females need males to invest resources in them to secure the survival of themselves and their offspring. This may be less likely to happen if a female is avoidantly attached, as her emotional distance may cause relationship difficulties in intimacy and sex. However, emotionally cold and distant males would not be prevented from spreading their genes, which according to evolutionary theory is their purpose. This point also contradicts the idea that attachment theory has continuity. It has more continuity or repercussions for females. Attachment theory has evolutionary principles, so gender issues are not discussed.

 DETERMINISM

This theory is deterministic it suggests that individuals that have had poor attachment experiences are unable to form successful relationships. This is quite depressing, as it means that people are destined to fail at connecting with others.

 SOCIALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH/SEXIST  

This theory is negative as it blames parents, although Bowlby and others stressed primary caregivers other than the Mother, critics have still labelled this theory as misogynistic as ultimately Mothers are the primary caregiver and are the ones who feel the burden of blame for having an insecurely attached child. Some feminists have criticised attachment theory as being a sexist attack on working mothers. However, Bowlby felt that Mothering was the most important role of our species and elevated the primary caregiver role rather than derided it.

 REAL LIFE APPLICATIONS

This theory has many real-life applications for social policy. It has massive implications for the current government guidelines on childcare ratios in nurseries. It also has potential for teaching vulnerable parents how to bond with their babies. Cleary both these applications have long term benefits for society.

 CRITICISING THE CENTRAL IDEA OF THE THEORY, E.G., THAT MARRIAGE AND TRUE LOVE ARE THE NORMS

This theory assumes that relationship longevity in romantic relationships and belief in “true love” are the norms. This is exemplified in Fennel and Noller’s research, which noted that securely attached people had the most long-term relationships, and avoidantly attached types had the most short-lived, least intense relationships. Also, Hazan and Shaver asked participants questions about whether they believed love was forever. Surely marriage and assumed monogamy are social constructions; in other words, things that exist not in objective reality but as a result of human interaction and culture? Ideas about soul mates and marriage exist because humans agree that they exist.

 Yet, statistics on relationship duration and divorce in the west would suggest that relationship longevity is not the norm, so vast numbers of people are now insecurely attached or norms surrounding relationships are changing.  This means that the assumption that short-term relationships may be linked to an insecure childhood is wrong. It may just be that people, are more willing to experiment with other types of relationship: e.g., polygamy, singletons, living apart and flings.

 The ideas discussed above suggest that the central idea in Hazan and Shaver’s theory may be wrong, e.g., people do not have to be believe in “true love” to have successful relationships; what if they are an evolutionary psychologist or a scientist! 

 Moreover, according to evolutionary theory, monogamy was not the standard in our ancestral environments. They see physical attraction (what is known as romantic love) as finite, lasting a maximum of two years. This “love window” supposedly allows the female to ensure she gets protected and fed whilst she is pregnant and physically encumbered by her immobile baby for two years – until it toddles. Her hands are free, and she can regain some independence to forage. The father can then spread his abundant seed elsewhere (charming!). The father will probably still look after this female and child but not so intensely or devotedly. Their romantic love might be replaced with companionate love, as most long-term relationships are. It is thought that early humans were polygamous. In any case, after two years, the love chemicals dopamine, adrenalin and oxytocin have diminished, and partners may become less physically attracted to each other and more likely to cheat, end the relationship or be unhappy.

 Evolutionary and biological psychologists do not believe relationship longevity is the norm in many animal species. And although many animals seem to engage in long-term relationships, they also engage in infidelity, illegitimate offspring and even infanticide, research suggests that humans are often no different. This means that Hazan and Shaver may be wrong in assuming that monogamy is a valid way to test relationship success.

 It could be that, Hazan and Shaver and similar researchers, are measuring the wrong relationships dynamics as undoubtably, some of the ideas in Bowlby’s original theory are irrefutable. For example, Rutter showed that privation had long lasting effects on social relationships if adoption was later than sixth months. And since then, FMRIS have shown how abuse can be hard wired into the brain in a form of negative plasticity if it takes place during a critical period. So, it does seem reasonable to suggest that poor early care might impact the ability to relate later in life. 

 It could be that it is not your ability to live-in a long-term couple or your belief in “true love” that matters? Some Psychologists think that a better measure of early attachment dynamics might be to look at the security of the self about an attachment rather than a belief about what love is or how long it lasts, i.e. the general state of mind regarding attachment, how much empathy and respect you display in key relationships with parents, children, relatives, friends and associates?  Whether you put up with abusive relationships or provoke abuse? This means that some of the ideas presented by Bowlby may have been inaccurately tested.

 NATURE OR NURTURE OR BOTH?

Despite this theory’s evolutionary principles, it focuses mainly on nurture or psychodynamic principles, e.g., how early experience causes harm. Current research, e.g., Sue Gerhardt, investigates how nurture affects nature. In other words, how environment can change the architecture of your brain. For example, why love and sensitive parenting is essential to brain development in the early years of life. Especially in creating vital neural connections and a well-developed prefrontal cortex. And how early abuse can become hard-wired into the brain.

 For example, when a baby is upset, the hypothalamus produces cortisol in the subcortex at the brain's centre. In normal amounts cortisol is fine, but if a baby is exposed for too long or too often too stressful situations (such as being left to cry) its brain becomes flooded with cortisol and it will either over- or under-produce cortisol whenever the child is exposed to stress. Too much is linked to depression and fearfulness; too little too emotional detachment and aggression. Children of alcoholics have a raised cortisol level, as do children of very stressed mothers.

 These findings support the theory that quality of care can affect relationships, not because of an internal working model but because early care can affect early brain development and lead to lifelong changes in brain chemistry and structure.

.